| So your boss has heard of MPLS (Multi-Protocol Label | | | | give you my "consultant" opinion. It works ALMOST as |
| Switching) and is all excited about the possibilities it | | | | well but there are so many benefits to MPLS that |
| holds for your company's voice and data network. The | | | | typically motivate a customer to change. For example, |
| positives to your network reliability, performance, and | | | | if you have Quality of Service (QoS) sensitive |
| cost make it seem to be a no brainer. But...you're not | | | | applications running across your WAN then you should |
| sure how to migrate from your existing traditional | | | | consider MPLS. MPLS is a private networking |
| WAN (Wide Area Network) configuration to MPLS. | | | | technology similar to the concept of Frame Relay in |
| You're tasked with investigating if moving your | | | | that it is delivered in the "cloud". The primary difference |
| company's network from a point-to-point T1 WAN | | | | with MPLS is that you can purchase quality of service |
| architecture to a MPLS architecture makes business | | | | for applications across your WAN. During the |
| sense. | | | | provisioning process the carrier (or your agent-wink |
| The easy answer here is yes. It most cases of course | | | | wink) will interview you in order to determine which |
| it does. | | | | applications are important to your business, they will |
| But.... why? And more importantly.... How do you | | | | then build a QoS template to service these applications |
| accomplish the changeover? | | | | on your WAN. These applications will be given priority |
| In looking at changing your architecture from Point to | | | | over all other traffic in times of peak load. MPLS is by |
| Point to an MPLS type of network I suggest starting | | | | far the most costly solution between Frame Relay, |
| with the business requirements and tying your network | | | | VPN and MPLS.... but is the only technology that will |
| requirements to the business needs. In this manner, | | | | support QoS! |
| you'll have clear business outcomes for comparison | | | | But let's put the salesman aside and remember one |
| when you start getting the cost vs benefits discussion | | | | thing. With MPLS we are using the carrier's private |
| involved when developing your business case for | | | | network which is infinitely better than creating your |
| investment. | | | | own VPN. But because of some "overhead" and the |
| A robust Total Cost of Ownership model will be | | | | belief that all carriers over-subscribe somewhat I am |
| needed to understand what the TCO will be gonig | | | | convinced that it's ALMOST as good. |
| forwards. Also, I'd suggest developing a strong | | | | So if it's almost as good would it be worth migrating if |
| understanding of the costs of doing nothing and also | | | | you could enjoy cost savings & redundancy??? |
| the potential savings or new revenue opportunities for | | | | Maybe. But these are the things that are making MPLS |
| your business so you can develop a Net Present | | | | the hot ticket now. |
| Value (NPV) of your network options. | | | | 3. Does this work well with VOIP? Sure. You can get |
| I would also recommend looking at the interfaces | | | | QoS like I stated above. |
| you're looking to support in the network. MPLS does | | | | MPLS is an IP-based framing technology (at OSI layer |
| enable you to have a common protocol across all your | | | | 3) that inherently meshes your WAN (this is the |
| networks and you can effectively establish an MPLS | | | | redundancy you refer to above). MPLS has a feature |
| Cross Connect in your network. This will rely on how | | | | called QoS or quality of service. This feature allows |
| your local service providers will provide MPLS services | | | | both your CPE router and the carrier's network to |
| to you, if at all. So you would most likely need to | | | | prioritize data based upon your settings or preferences |
| purchase either point to point or point to multipoint | | | | (carrier's level of support of QoS can be broad) and |
| based transmission services from your provider. We're | | | | gives you more "bang for your buck" with the |
| seeing that many enterprises and service providers | | | | bandwidth that you select for the local loop going to |
| are heading towards ethernet ubiquity as a service | | | | each office. MPLS is made for VoIP like RC Cola is |
| interface and then offering multiple services on top of | | | | made for Moonpies. Because true "toll quality" VoIP |
| the ethernet interface. | | | | requires prioritization across a carrier network, you (or |
| VoIP works well across an MPLS type of network, | | | | your provider) can tag VoIP traffic with high priority to |
| however it does depend on the services that you | | | | easily address the jitter and latency sensitivity inherent |
| purchase off your service provider. As you're looking | | | | in the service. |
| at MPLS, then I assume that you're looking at buying | | | | The other huge advantage you have is that you can |
| straight transmission services and then you'll use MPLS | | | | add locations with a simple routing table update and |
| to aggregate traffic into your WAN links. Hence, you're | | | | maintain a fully-meshed architecture, where with Point |
| business case is going to be driven by arbitrage | | | | to Point circuits, you would have had to add a |
| opportunities so capture as much traffic as possible | | | | separate circuit to each location you want to |
| onto your network and apply QoS at the edge. | | | | interconnect, making MPLS more and more cost |
| From a QoS perspective, ensure that you can also | | | | friendly the more locations you add. |
| apply policing to the traffic that goes onto your WAN | | | | Finally, MPLS allows you (or your carrier) to configure |
| traffic. I recommend applying Hierarchical QoS as this | | | | network objects (such as servers, VPN concentrators, |
| will enable you to dynamically share the bandwidth in | | | | and Network-Based Firewalls) as nodes on your |
| your WAN links. | | | | MPLS network. For instance, with a properly deployed |
| As you can tell, there are lots of issues and questions | | | | Network Based Firewall, you can provide all of your |
| that need to be addressed so I'd suggest working | | | | locations with an internet connection over your MPLS |
| closely with some trusted partners and driving towards | | | | network that doesn't rely on a single location to |
| an outcome based business drivers and commercial | | | | aggregate the traffic. Some carriers even offer |
| outcomes. | | | | redundant firewalls, meaning that you have redundant |
| We have worked with many customers that have | | | | Internet connections fully meshed giving you more |
| migrated to MPLS from old school point to point. There | | | | potential up-time in the case of a single failure on your |
| are a few reasons our customers did this, but let me | | | | network. |
| assure you the #1 reason was cost. A good | | | | What do you need to consider? In my experience, the |
| competitive carrier will offer an MPLS solution that is | | | | biggest things to keep in mind are: |
| sometimes less costly than the old point to point type | | | | - Stay away from MPLS enabled Frame/ATM |
| solution..... with most of the same or more functionality. | | | | networks with committed access rates (CAR), this |
| But there are some factors: | | | | committed access rate is often a lower bandwidth |
| 1. If the point to points are crossing state or lata | | | | than your local loop bandwidth, which can degrade |
| boundaries..... or are fairly separated by miles.... you | | | | your quality and quantity of bandwidth across a |
| should enjoy considerable savings. | | | | carrier's network (its always in the fine print). |
| 2. If you get a carrier that bundles MPLS with an | | | | - QoS at the "Edge" and across the "Core" - choose a |
| Integrated Access type solution you will save big | | | | carrier with both. |
| money (combination of voice, internet & MPLS | | | | - QoS recognition across the carrier network - some |
| delivered on one T1 with quality of service). | | | | carriers will allow customers to mark packets with |
| Here's some additional points that might help you. | | | | priority, but will not recognize and uphold that priority, |
| 1. Is it redundant? Yes, depending on how you design | | | | don't fall into this trap. |
| your network (we can help you of course) sites can | | | | - SLA guarantees - be sure to choose a carrier that |
| network with each other over your wide area network | | | | provides acceptable service level agreements for the |
| for disaster recovery/ redundancy. Unlike the traditional | | | | type of service you plan to push across your network |
| point to point architecture where you might only be as | | | | - Customer Service and dedicated sales rep - you |
| strong as that single link. We helped a huge national | | | | want someone you can reach out to with questions |
| company with a migration from point to point and | | | | that you can trust - this is the most difficult thing to find. |
| frame relay to MPLS. The big reason was with so | | | | For free assistance designing the right MPLS |
| many sites there was an outage almost every day. | | | | configuration for your network.... and sourcing the most |
| The network was designed with redundancy as the | | | | cost effective provider..... I suggest you take advantage |
| main driver. | | | | of the resources listed or discussed at Broadband |
| 2. Does it work as well? It depends who you ask. Are | | | | Nation. |
| you talking to a salesman? He will say yes. Let me | | | | |