The Benefits of Migrating To MPLS
The Benefits of Migrating To MPLS
Contents
Introduction 3
The Difference in MPLS-based Private and Site-to-Site IP VPNS 3
Site-to-Site IP VPNs 4
MPLS-based Private IP VPNs 4
The Benefits of Private IP Networks 5
Class of Service 6
Automatic Redundancy/Disaster Recovery 7
Fully Meshed Infrastructure 7
Reduced Complexity 8
Getting Started 8
Prioritizing Applications 8
Managing Class-of-Service Thresholds 9
Measuring Service Level Agreements 9
Optimizing Bandwidth Requirements 9
Managing the Network Migration 9
Overcoming Private IP Challenges 10
Prioritizing Applications 10
Managing Class-of-Service Thresholds 13
Measuring Service Level Agreements 14
Optimizing Bandwidth Requirements 14
Managing the Network Migration 14
Conclusion 15
About XO MPLS & Application Performance Management 16
About XO Communications 16
Introduction
Today’s enterprises are faced with a number of network-related needs that are challenging
from both a technology and a financial perspective. Organizations are looking for proven,
cost-effective solutions to:
However, before you begin migrating your existing network to a private IP network, consider
these challenges of MPLS-based networks:
Many white papers describe technically how MPLS works—down to the details of
configuration across different Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) types but, before you
take a deep dive into the inner workings of the technology, determine if migrating to MPLS is
the best decision for your enterprise. Thoroughly investigate the key business reasons your
enterprise might consider a private IP network, as well as the issues you must monitor and
manage to make MPLS a success.
Site-to-Site IP VPNs
A site-to-site IP VPN, also known as a CPE-based VPN, is defined as using the public
Internet as the core backbone of the VPN. Enterprises use dedicated Internet connectivity,
cable, wireless, DSL, satellite, and dial-up as different means to connect to the IP VPN.
Enterprises then typically use CPE—VPN gateway, router, etc.—to create a VPN with
tunnels and encryption so different remote sites can communicate with the headquarters
and with other remote sites directly and securely.
The primary benefit for site-to-site IP VPNs is tied to access—low cost and ubiquity.
Traditionally, Internet connectivity is much less expensive than frame relay or ATM—and
“While there are cost savings the difference grows quite substantially for international locations. The ubiquitous nature
to access site-to-site IP VPNs, of Internet connectivity is a major benefit as well—IP is IP regardless of whether it is
the total cost of ownership dial-up, dedicated, domestic, or international.
can actually be higher for While there are cost savings to access site-to-site IP VPNs, the total cost of ownership
enterprises because CPE is can actually be higher for enterprises because CPE is needed at every site to create
needed at every site to create the VPN. The potential exposure of using the public Internet for business-critical traffic
is extremely high. The Internet’s architecture was not designed for business-grade
the VPN.” applications and requirements and does not offer strong Service Level Agreements (SLAs)
for enterprises.
For example, traditional frame relay requires a dedicated permanent virtual circuit (PVC)
for remote sites to communicate between each other, as illustrated in Figure 1. The traffic
follows the path for every transaction between two sites.
With a private, IP-enabled transport network—as illustrated in Figure 2—the carrier’s routers
use MPLS-based routing to communicate between locations in the network via IP addressing
and is not limited to individual PVCs. Tunneling and encryption are generally not required
for the enterprise because the network is on the private carrier’s backbone, not the public
Internet. Additionally, the carrier’s core routers create the VPN, not the enterprise’s CPE.
“A key advantage of a
private IP VPN is the ease of
migration from a frame relay
or ATM network.”
A key advantage of a private IP VPN is the ease of migration from a frame relay or ATM
network. For most service providers, there is no need for provisioning new circuits—since the
frame relay and ATM is still the Layer 2 access—and routers may not need to be replaced.
The complexity to the enterprise of managing the VPN is less with private IP networks
because it is network based, meaning the provider, by means of its core routers, handles the
creation of the VPN.
The frame relay world considers two bandwidth numbers: port size and committed
information rate (CIR). The private IP world manages two criteria: Committed Access Rate
(CAR) and thresholds by Class of Service (CoS). The frame relay port size and private IP
CAR are very similar—this is the maximum amount of bandwidth that can be used for a single
circuit/location. The differences lie between CIR and CoS.
Enterprises purchase CIR per PVC as a way to guarantee bandwidth from the service
provider. Private IP VPNs provide a CoS capability to the enterprise by allowing multiple
classes of prioritization, each a percentage of CAR. CoS is more application-focused since
enterprises can select which applications are the most critical or the most delay-sensitive
and assign them the highest priority. The network-based VPN polices and queues the classes
instead of deploying traffic shapers to prioritize the traffic.
Any network manager working 10 years ago or so knows why enterprises migrated
from point-to-point/private line networks to frame relay—it was cheaper. While there
will likely be cost savings for access by migrating to private IP, there are several other
key benefits of moving from a frame relay or ATM network to a private IP VPN. These
benefits include:
Enterprises decide which applications are the most mission-critical or delay sensitive
and assign them specific classes. Most service providers today offer between three and
six different classes of service. They might have different marketing names, but the key
point is they differentiate policies for the applications to travel through the network—
each class has a different priority setting than the others. In addition to the number of
classes, the provider also allows a certain amount of bandwidth per class—depending
on total circuit size, number of classes and contract agreement. Once you know the
number of classes and the amount of bandwidth assigned to each, you are ready to
begin assigning priority.
For your enterprise, Voice over IP (VoIP) and Oracle® might be the most important
applications, so they are set for the highest priority, while e-mail and Web browsing
receive lower assignments. You configure your router to tag the correct class in the IP
header—DiffServ or TOS bit settings—and pass the data to the service provider’s edge
router. The provider’s router looks at the IP header for the class setting and polices
the traffic. The policing from the source site—or ingress—ensures the threshold of
bandwidth is not exceeded for each class setting. The core router then sends the traffic
across the network with prioritization.
At the destination location—or egress— the provider’s router queues the prioritized
traffic from each site and delivers the highest priority first. With the capability of CoS,
you can easily implement a prioritization schedule across the enterprise so the most
mission-critical applications receive the highest priority.
The need for infrastructure redundancy has grown substantially over the past few years as
more enterprises drive revenue, reduce costs, or provide services based on applications on
the WAN. If a credit card authorization site is down, a retail enterprise may lose sales because
today’s consumers carry less cash. If a manufacturing company cannot transmit its stocking
order to a plant, the vendor might impose penalties. These two examples are common
scenarios that are exacerbated when there is a single point of failure in the infrastructure.
“A “The need for That does not always mean the network itself is the cause of the problem; it can be any
infrastructure redundancy portion of the infrastructure that does not allow the business transaction.
In a hub-and-spoke environment, traffic from a remote site must traverse a host location
before it is routed to the destination address. This architecture was adequate several years
ago, but as Web-based applications or time-sensitive applications like VoIP become more
prevalent, the hub-and-spoke architecture becomes more stressed.
A fully meshed architecture—meaning every site can communicate directly with any other
site without having to run through a hub/host location first—has two key benefits for most
enterprises: improved site-to-site performance and fewer burdens on host locations.
When an application such as VoIP is used between two remote sales offices, there is no
benefit to “home-running” the application back to the host location. This scenario adds
potential delay by adding extra steps and distance to complete the application transaction.
With a fully meshed network, a VoIP call between two offices in London will flow directly
between the locations, instead of having to go to the hub site located in Los Angeles. In a
private IP network, the number of steps and physical distance alone can be greatly reduced.
Reduced Complexity
The complexity of managing a frame relay or ATM network grows exponentially with network
size and the number of virtual circuits. Managing hundreds of sites and thousands of PVCs
is a daunting task for many enterprises just to handle moves, adds, and changes on a daily
basis.
“Managing hundreds of sites As discussed earlier, IP subnet addressing is used to connect every site in the network. PVCs
and thousands of PVCs is are no longer the connection between sites. Instead of managing a port for every site and
a daunting task for many tens, hundreds, or thousands of individual PVCs, the private IP network has a single port
for each site and then uses IP addressing to connect to every other site. This architecture is
enterprises just to handle much less complex, meaning it is easier to administer and allows enterprises to focus limited
moves, adds, and changes on resources on more important activities.
a daily basis.”
Getting Started
Every enterprise can likely benefit in some fashion from a private IP network. Before deciding
to migrate your existing frame relay or ATM network to private IP, consider these key factors
to achieve maximum benefit with minimum pain:
• Prioritizing applications
• Managing CoS thresholds
• Measuring SLAs across multiple classes
• Optimizing bandwidth requirements
• Managing the network migration
Prioritizing Applications
Another challenge for network managers is the addition of new, powerful applications. If the
enterprise decides to implement Oracle or SAP in the next six months, how will the new high-
priority application affect existing high-priority applications? Networks and applications are
continuously evolving and changing, and CoS prioritization must be able to adapt.
XO911WP-1010
Because you are now prioritizing applications with more granularity, managing CoS
thresholds becomes absolutely critical. As mentioned earlier, service providers allow a
certain amount of bandwidth for class of service. As long as you stay below that usage
threshold, there should not be any problems. If you exceed the threshold, the pain can be
magnified. If the network is congested and exceeds your highest priority class threshold,
the traffic will drop to the lowest priority or may be discarded. So now your most mission-
critical applications may be at risk. Rolling out new applications across the infrastructure
compounds the problem.
A new application will be assigned a class, and its usage may cause a domino effect for
other applications. For example, a new custom financial application might cause the highest
priority class to exceed the threshold, so one of the other applications in the same class
will be dropped one prioritization lower, and so on. As an enterprise with mission-critical
applications, you cannot risk the highest priority applications being downgraded because the
class threshold was exceeded.
“In today’s world of squeezed
budgets, optimizing Measuring Service Level Agreements
bandwidth is critical for Many enterprises have SLAs with the service provider to ensure the network can handle its
many enterprises..” applications. Measuring SLAs from a provider’s point of view is delivering a monthly report
with weighted averages across the entire infrastructure for delay, throughput, and availability.
Private IP compounds the issue by eliminating traditional virtual circuits, as well as layering
on multiple classes of service.
Before private IP, it was difficult for many enterprises to proactively monitor service level
parameters from an end-to-end point of view. Now with the extra complexity, some
enterprises find it extremely difficult to measure SLA parameters across IP subnets and by
individual classes of service. This lack of visibility makes it more difficult to leverage the day-
to-day benefits of SLAs.
With today’s limited budgets, optimizing bandwidth is critical for many enterprises. While
enterprises need to ensure they have sufficient bandwidth to meet the needs of applications
and end-users, they do not have the luxury of over-provisioning every circuit in the network.
But as application performance becomes more important, the enterprise cannot be so
aggressive and not have sufficient bandwidth resources. Most organizations walk this fine
line.
The ease in migrating from frame relay or ATM to private IP was highlighted earlier in this
paper. This migration becomes easy because organizations can leverage existing Layer
2 infrastructure and CPE. Enterprises cannot let that ease lull them into a false sense of
security as they plan migration efforts.
Even though it may be a fairly simple migration path to private IP, the transition takes months.
You will not be able to have 75 sites converted from frame relay to private IP overnight. You
must manage your network throughout the entire migration. Some of your locations may
be frame relay while others are already converted to private IP. Without visibility into the
performance of both, you will be managing blind.
“With XO Applications
Performance Management,
identifying misconfigured
applications is extremely
fast and easy by measuring
utilization for each CoS across
every site in the network.”
The main issue for many enterprises that have already migrated to private IP is application
misconfiguration. For one enterprise example, VoIP was deemed critical and should have
received the highest-class setting. However, as the network engineer was configuring the
80 sites, he made a simple mistake when setting the DiffServ for one location and VoIP
calls were impacted. Without visibility, identifying the problem was extremely difficult.
They thought VoIP was receiving the highest priority, so they began troubleshooting other
parameters including CPE.
Now that the applications across the entire network have been identified and each IP header
configuration has been set correctly, you need to verify that each application is set correctly.
You can see that the highest setting has applications including Oracle, routing, and Web
traffic (see Figure 5).
Network managers must take steps to ensure that applications are assigned correctly. In this
example, Web traffic should have been assigned a lower priority, but it is consuming valuable
high-priority resources. Armed with this information, the end-user can correctly assign Web
traffic to the bronze priority setting.
The cost of bandwidth alone can comprise as much as 60 to 70 percent of total networking
budgets for some enterprises. With tighter resources, optimizing bandwidth is a key step
toward maximizing network and application performance. With the new Layer 3 connectivity—
IP addressing—instead of Layer 2 connectivity—PVCs— utilization will change in a private IP
environment.
Adding CoS capabilities also throws a new wrinkle into the equation. With the bursty nature
of traffic, it is important to understand the impact of usage on a private IP environment. The
Burst Advisor in XO Applications Performance Management measures actual usages in one-
second increments in order to size your circuits properly. Consequently, the networking group
would have the information to make decisions, such as increasing bandwidth for critical
locations or moving bandwidth from less-utilized sites to over-utilized sites.
“XO Applications
Performance Management
provides visibility into
interworked environments so
you can still see end-to-end
performance, even if one site
is frame relay and the other is
private IP.”
Conclusion
MPLS networks are no longer on the edge of innovation due to their growing adoption.
However, there are still key hurdles that must be addressed, ranging from CoS prioritization
to understanding the change from PVC-based connectivity to IP subnet-based connectivity.
The good news is there are tools available to bridge the challenge of migration to a private IP
network.
MPLS-based private IP networks provide many benefits for enterprises, ranging from increased
performance to less complexity to lower costs, but this also changes the infrastructure IT
managers have administered for years. XO Applications Performance Management leverages its
history in traditional network performance management with enhanced private IP and application
functionality so IT managers can confidently make the decision to migrate to an MPLS-based
network if it benefits the enterprise.
About XO Communications
XO is a leading provider of 21st century communications services for businesses and
communications services providers, including 50 percent of the Fortune 500 and leading cable
companies, carriers, content providers and mobile operators. Utilizing its unique and powerful
nationwide IP network, extensive local metro networks and broadband wireless facilities,
XOH offers customers a broad range of managed voice, data and IP services in more than 80
metropolitan markets across the United States.
XOMPLSWP-1110