Introduction to MPLS

Based on MPLS tutorial from Tim Griffin

and

MPLS/VPN tutorial from Chris Chase

Whats all this talk about MPLS?

MPLS MPLS MPLS MPLS MPLS MPLS MPLS MPLS MPLS MPLS MPLS is going to solve all of our problems is a solution in search of a problem is all about traffic engineering is what I wish on all of my competitors is all about virtual private networks solves network operations problems creates network operations problems is all about lowering operational costs is going to cost more than its worth is the natural next step in Internet evolution is too complicated to survive in the Internet

But what is MPLS anyway?

2

Goals of this Tutorial

To understand MPLS from a purely technical point of view
avoid the hype avoid the cynicism

To understand the broad technical issues without getting lost in the vast number of details
the gains the costs the tradeoffs
3

Outline
Why MPLS?
Problems with current IP routing and forwarding Complexity of overlay model Label swapping Label distribution Constraint based routing Traffic Engineering Virtual Private Networks

What is MPLS?

What applications could exploit MPLS?

Both Layer 2 and Layer 3 VPNs
4

IP forwarding paths are implemented with destination-based next hop tables

Dest.
Default to upstream router

Nxt Hop R1 Direct R3 R1 R3 R1

B
R R2 R R1 R4

A B C D E default

Dest. A B C D E default

Nxt Hop R2 R2 Direct R5 R5 R2

R3 R R5

C
Dest. A B C D E default

Nxt Hop R4 R3 R3 R4 Direct R4

IP Forwarding Process
1. Remove a packet from an input queue 2. Check for sanity, decrement TTL field 4. Place packet on correct output queue

Forwarding Process
If queues get full, just drop packets! 3. Match packets destination to a table entry If queues get full, just drop packets!

IP Forwarding Table
Router
6

IP routing protocols assume all forwarding is destination-based

B
R
The Fish

C
The next-hop forwarding paradigm does not allow router R to choose a route to A based on who originated the traffic, B or C.
7

IP forwarding tables are maintained by dynamic routing protocols

RIP Process
RIP Routing tables

BGP Process
BGP Routing tables

BGP

OSPF Process
OSPF Routing tables

RIP Domain

OS kernel

OSPF Domain

IP Forwarding Table

Shortest Path Routing: Link weights tend to attract or repel all traffic

A B A B

C
1 2 1 1

2 1

1 1

Overlay Networks
B A

Layer 2

(virtual circuits)

C B
C

Layer 3

10

Advantages of Overlay Networks

ATM and Frame Relay switches offer high reliability and low cost Virtual circuits can be reengineered without changing the layer 3 network Large degree of control over traffic Detailed per-circuit statistics Isolates layer 2 network management from the details of higher layer services

11

Problems with Overlay Networks

Often use proprietary protocols and management tools Often requires full meshing of statically provisioned virtual circuits ATM cell tax ---- about 20% of bandwidth If layer 3 is all IP, then the overlay model seems overly complicated and costly Advances in optical networking cast some doubt on the entire approach
Overlay model is just fine when layer 2 network provides diverse non IP services (e.g., IPv6, AppleTalk, IPX, )
12

Blur Layer 2 and 3?

router switch (ATM, Frame)

this is not a router this is not a switch

what is it?
13

Sanity Check?
The problems with IP forwarding and routing do not require technologies like MPLS

Technologies like MPLS may be very valuable if they can enable new services and generate new revenue

Many can be addressed with simple solutions. Like the design of simple networks! The problems are not show stoppers The MPLS cure will have side effects For many applications, TCP/IP handles congestion very well

14

MPLS = MultiProtocol Label Switching

A Layer 2.5 tunneling protocol Based on ATM-like notion of label swapping A simple way of labeling each network layer packet Independent of Link Layer Independent of Network Layer Used to set up Label-switched paths (LSP), similar to ATM PVCs

Network MPLS Data Link Physical

RFC 3031 : Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture

15

MPLS Data Plane

16

Generic MPLS Encapsulation

Layer 2 Header MPLS Label 1 MPLS Label 2

MPLS Label n

Layer 3 Packet

0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Label | Exp |S| TTL | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Often called a shim (or sham) header

RFC 3032. MPLS Label Stack Encoding

Label: Exp: S: TTL:

Label Value, 20 bits Experimental, 3 bits Bottom of Stack, 1 bit Time to Live, 8 bits
17

Forwarding via Label Swapping

417

data

288

data

Labels are short, fixed-length values.

18

Popping Labels

data

288

data

577

data

288

577

data

19

Pushing Labels

288

data

data

288

577

data

577

data

20

10

A Label Switched Path (LSP)

POP! SWAP! SWAP! PUSH!

data

417 data

666 data

233 data

data

A label switched path

tail end head end Often called an MPLS tunnel: payload headers are not Inspected inside of an LSP. Payload could be MPLS
21

Label Switched Routers

IP

IP out

IP Forwarding Table

IP in
IP

77

data

Label Swapping Table

23
MPLS in

data

MPLS out

The data plane

represents IP Lookup + label push represents label pop + IP lookup

22

11

Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC)

IP2

417 IP2

666 IP2

233 IP2

IP2

IP1

417 IP1

666 IP1

233 IP1

IP1

Packets IP1 and IP2 are forwarded in the same way --- they are in the same FEC. Network layer headers are not inspected inside an MPLS LSP. This means that inside of the tunnel the LSRs do not need full IP forwarding table.
23

LSP Merge
IP2

417 IP2

823 IP2

912 IP2

IP2

IP1

111 IP1

666 IP1

233 IP1

IP1

IP2

417 IP2

823 IP2

912 IP2

IP2

IP1

417 IP1

666 IP1

233 IP1

IP1
24

LSP merge

12

Penultimate Hop Popping

POP + IP Lookup SWAP SWAP PUSH

IP

417 IP

666 IP

233 IP

IP

IP Lookup

POP

SWAP

PUSH

IP

IP

666 IP

233 IP

IP
25

LSP Hierarchy via Label Stacking

IP2 IP2

POP

PUSH

66

IP2

44 66

IP2

88 66

IP2

17 66

IP2

66

IP2

23

IP1

44 23

IP1

88 23

IP1

17 23

IP1

23

IP1

POP

PUSH

IP1 Did I get carried away on this slide?

IP1 26

13

MPLS Tunnels come at a cost

ICMP messages may be generated in the middle of a tunnel, but the source address of the bad packet may not be in the IP forwarding table of the LSR!
TTL expired: traceroute depends on this! MTU exceeded: Path MTU Discovery (RFC1191) depends on this!

None of the proposed solutions are without their own problems

27

MPLS also supports native encapsulation Layer 2 MPLS

PPP

Ethernet

ATM VPI/VCI . . .

Frame DLCI . . .

generic encapsulation

rest of label stack

. . .

generic encapsulation

generic encapsulation IP datagram

28

14

But Native Labels May Cause Big Headaches

No TTL!
Loop detection? Loop prevention?

LSP merge may not be supported

Label bindings cannot flow from destination to source, but must be requested at source
MPLS was initially designed to exploit the existence of ATM hardware and reduce the complexity of overlay networks. But IP/MPLS with native ATM labels results in a large number of problems and complications.
29

MPLS Control Plane

30

15

Basic MPLS Control Plane

MPLS control plane = IP control plane +

label distribution

Label distribution protocols are needed to (1) create label FEC bindings (2) distribute bindings to neighbors, (3) maintain consistent label swapping tables
31

Label Distribution: Option I

Piggyback label information on top of existing IP routing protocol
Good Guarantees consistency of IP forwarding tables and MPLS label swapping tables Points

No new protocol required

Allows only traditional destination-based, hop-byBad hop forwarding paths Points

Some IP routing protocols are not suitable Need explicit binding of label to FEC Link state protocols (OSPF, ISIS) are implicit, and so are not good piggyback candidates Distance vector (RIP) and path vector (BGP) are 32 good candidates. Example: BGP+

16

Label Distribution: Option II

Create new label distribution protocol(s)
Good Compatible with Link State routing protocols Points Not limited to destination-based, hop-by-hop

forwarding paths

Additional complexity of new protocol and Bad interactions with existing protocols Points

Transient inconsistencies between IP forwarding tables and MPLS label swapping tables

Examples: LDP (IETF) and TDP (Cisco proprietary)

33

The Control Plane

IP Routing Protocols + IP Routing Tables Label distribution protocols + Label Binding Tables

Routing messages

Label distribution messages

IP

IP out

IP Forwarding Table

IP in
IP

77

data

Label Swapping Table

23
MPLS in
34

data

MPLS out

17

Label Distribution with BGP

Carrying Label Information in BGP-4 draft-ietf-mpls-bgp4-05.txt (1/2001) Associates a label (or label stack) with the BGP next hop. Uses multiprotocol features of BGP: RFC 2283. Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4 So routes with labels are in a different address space than a vanilla routes (no labels)
35

BGP piggyback not required for simple iBGP optimization

Map traffic to the LSP that terminates at the egress router chosen by BGP
BGP route Internal BGP

IP AS 444

417 IP

666 IP

233 IP

IP

AS 888
Routers A and B do not need full routing tables. They only need IGP routes (and label bindings).
36

18

BGP piggyback allows Interdomain LSPs

Use top of stack to get to egress router, bottom of stack for LSP in AS 444.
BGP route With label 99 Internal BGP with label 99

99

IP

417 99

IP

666 99

IP

233 99

IP

IP

AS 444

AS 888

37

MPLS tunnels can decrease size of core routing state

Core routers need only IGP routes and LSPs for IGP routes Implies less route oscillation Are these really Implies less memory problems? Implies less CPU usage BUT: still need route reflectors to avoid full mesh and/or to reduce BGP table size at border routers BUT: since your core routers do not have full tables you now have all of the MPLS problems associated with ICMP source unknown (TTL, MTU, traceroute )
38

19

Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)

RFC 3036. LDP Specification. (1/2001)
Dynamic distribution of label binding information Supports only vanilla IP hop-by-hop paths LSR discovery Reliable transport with TCP Incremental maintenance of label swapping tables (only deltas are exchanged) Designed to be extensible with Type-LengthValue (TLV) coding of messages Modes of behavior that are negotiated during session initialization Label retention (liberal or conservative) LSP control (ordered or independent) Label assignment (unsolicited or on-demand)

39

LDP Message Categories

Discovery messages: used to announce and maintain the presence of an LSR in a network. Session messages: used to establish, maintain, and terminate sessions between LDP peers. Advertisement messages: used to create, change, and delete label mappings for FECs. Notification messages: used to provide advisory information and to signal error information.
40

20

LDP and Hop-by-Hop routing

10.11.12.0/24

network next-hop direct

A

network next-hop
10.11.12.0/24

network next-hop
10.11.12.0/24

network next-hop
10.11.12.0/24

LSP
10.11.12.0/24

LDP

417
10.11.12.0/24

LDP

666
10.11.12.0/24

LDP

233
10.11.12.0/24

Generate new label And bind to destination

pop
A

swap
B

swap

push

IP

417 IP

666 IP

233 IP

IP
41

MPLS Traffic Engineering

42

21

MPLS Traffic Engineering

The optimization goals of traffic engineering are To enhance the performance of IP traffic while utilizing Network resources economically and reliably.

Intra-Domain
A Framework for Internet Traffic Engineering Draft-ietf-tewg-framework-02.txt A major goal of Internet Traffic Engineering is to facilitate efficient and reliable network operations while simultaneously optimizing network resource utilization and performance.

RFC 2702 Requirements for Traffic Engineering over MPLS

43

Intra-Domain

TE May Require Going Beyond Hop-by-Hop Routing

Explicit routes
Allow traffic sources to set up paths

Constraint based routing

Chose only best paths that do no violate some constraints Needs explicit routing May need resource reservation

Traffic classification
Map traffic to appropriate LSPs
44

22

Hop-by-Hop vs. Explicit Routes

Distributed control LSP trees rooted at destination Destination based forwarding Originates at source Paths from sources to destinations Traffic to path mapping based on what configuration commands your vendor(s) provide

45

Explicit path Setup

REQUEST LSPID 17 REQUEST LSPID 17 REQUEST LSPID 17 Request path D->C->B->A with LSPID 17

LSP
reply

417
LSPID 17

reply

666
LSPID 17

reply

233
LSPID 17

pop

swap

swap

push

IP

417 IP

666 IP

233 IP

IP
46

23

Constraint Based Routing

Basic components
1. 2. Specify path constraints Extend topology database to include resource and constraint information 3. Find paths that do not violate constraints and optimize some metric 4. Signal to reserve resources along path 5. Set up LSP along path (with explicit route) 6. Map ingress traffic to the appropriate LSPs
Note: (3) could be offline, or online (perhaps an extension to OSPF)
Problem here: OSPF areas hide information for scalability. So these extensions work best only within an area

Extend Link State Protocols (IS-IS, OSPF)

Extend RSVP or LDP or both!

Problem here: what is the correct resource model for IP services? 47

Resource Reservation + Label Distribution Two emerging/competing/dueling approaches:

Add label distribution and explicit routes to a resource reservation protocol Add explicit routes and resource reservation to a label distribution protocol

RSVP-TE

CR-LDP

+
RSVP

+
LDP
Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP draft-ietf-mpls-cr-lpd-05.txt

RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-08.txt

48

24

The Fish Revisited

LSP2

A C
LSP1

Need at least one explicit route to A

49

Use Shortest Paths to get beyond Shortest Paths!

The IP routing protocol at LSR A is configured to (privately) see A -> C LSP as one link with weight 1.
1

A B

LSP
2 1 2 1

Vanilla IP forwarding
50

25

MPLS Fast Reroute

Using MPLS TE to improve availability
RSVP-TE creates backup tunnels On failure of protected LSP, packets are shoved down backup LSP tunnel Switchover is faster than waiting for CSPF to calculate and signal a new LSP

For local repair (link or node) can recover ~100ms or better

Backup LSP is already in place, so as soon as the failure is detected locally the headend just needs to reprogram the label FIB

51

Link Protection
Create backup LSP around link to Next Hop With or without reservation
Can also backup normal LDP LSP Backup tunnel. Pushes label 51 onto tunnel

2
pop

A
18

C
51

45

Protected LSP

52

26

Node Protection
Create backup tunnel LSP for two hops away (next-next hop) Backs up RSVP-TE tunnel
Learns labels from RESV recorded route of protected tunnel Backup tunnel. Pushes label 45 onto tunnel

2
pop

A
18

C
51

45

Protected LSP

53

Path Protection
Create an end-to-end diverse backup tunnel Slower than local protection have to wait for headend to detect failure D 2
pop

Backup LSP

A
18

C
51

45

Protected LSP

54

27

MPLS TE: Is it worth the cost?

Much of the traffic across a (transit) ISPs network is interdomain traffic
Congestion is most common on peering links The current work on MPLS TE does not apply to interdomain links! (Actually, it does not even work well across OSPF areas)

MPLS TE is probably most valuable when IP services require more than best effort
VPNs with SLAs? Supporting differentiated services?

55

VPNs with MPLS

Traditional VPN overlay model: MPLS-based Layer 2 VPNs draft-kompella-mpls-l2vpn-02.txt Whither Layer 2 VPNs? draft-kb-ppvpn-l2vpn-motiv-00.txt New VPN peering model: RFC 2547. BGP/MPLS VPNs

56

28

Traditional Overlay VPNs

B A

Providers Layer 2 Network (ATM, Frame Relay, X.25)

C
C

B A
Customers Layer 2 VPN

57

Why Not Use MPLS Tunnels?

B A

Providers MPLS enabled network

C
C

MPLS LSP

B
MPLS LSP

A
Customers Layer 2 VPN
MPLS LSP

58

29

Potential Advantages of MPLS Layer 2 VPNs

Provider needs only a single network infrastructure to support public IP, and VPN services, traffic engineered services, and differentiated services Additional routing burden on provider is bounded Clean separation of administrative responsibilities. Service provider does MPLS connectivity, customer does layer 3 connectivity Easy transition for customers currently using traditional Layer 2 VPNs

59

BGP/MPLS VPNs
RFC 2547 Is Peer Model of VPN (not Overlay) Also draft-rosen-rfc2547bis-02.txt Cisco configuration info :
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/ 120newft/120t/120t5/vpn.htm

AT&Ts IPFR service is based on this RFC.

60

30

RFC 2547 Model

VPN 2 VPN 1

VPN Provider Network

VPN 1

VPN 2
61

CEs and PEs

Customer Site

CE = customer edge

PE = provider edge Provider Network

62

31

VPN Address Overlap Means Vanilla Forwarding Tables Cant Work

Site 2 p1

Site 1 p1

VPRN 2

Provider

VPRN 1

Site 3 p2

Dest. p1 p2

Nxt Hop ?? ??

Site 4 p2
63

VPN Overlap Means Vanilla Vanilla forwarding tables are out Forwarding Tables Cant Work

Site 2 p2

VPRN 1

Site 1 p1

VPRN 2

Provider Violates isolation Guarantee of A VPN: site 1 can Exchange traffic with Site 3!
64

Site 3 p3

Dest. p1 p2 p3

Nxt Hop s1 s2 s3

32

RFC 2547 : Per site forwarding tables

Called VRFs, for "VPN Routing and Forwarding" tables.

Site 2 p2

VPRN 1

Site 1 p1

VPRN 2

Provider Site 2 FT

Site 3 p3

Site 1 FT Dest. p2 Nxt Hop s2

Site 3 FT Dest. p2 Nxt Hop s2

Dest. p1 p3

Nxt Hop s1 s3
65

Tunnels required across backbone

Site 2 p2

VPRN 1

Site 1 p1

VPRN 2

VPRN 3

Site 3 p3

Site 4 p3
66

33

Follow the Route and Follow the Packet

MPLS VPN Cloud LSR3

LSR2 LSR1

PER1

PER2

CR1

Network Z CR2

Site 1 CR1 at Site 1 has a packet addressed to a host in network Z at Site 2. How does it get there?

Site 2
67

LSP Setup for OSPF Route to PER2

MPLS VPN Cloud L4 L2 LSR3 L2 pop L1 L2 LSR1 PER2 L1 PER1 PER2 LSR2

CR1 CR2

Li - labels requested via LDP from next hop neighbor for each routing table entry LSP for the OSPF route to reach PER2
68

34

How MPLS VPNs work

1) Follow the routes
Each VPN on a PER has a private routing table
Called a Virtual Routing Forwarding (vrf) table vrf is assigned attributes that are unique to the VPN

2) Follow the packet

Route Targets (RT) - attached to VPN routes. only vrfs with common RTs share routes Route Distinguishers (RD) - appended to routes to ensure uniqueness even if VPNs have overlapping address spaces Creates a new address family called vpnv4 = RD+ipv4 NOTE: RTs and RDs are applied to routes, NOT packets

A stack of two labels is used to forward the packet on the interior LSP and then external interface
69

VPN extensions
Route Target (RT)
BGP 64 bit extended community value First 16bit identify as RT type. Other 48 bit is variable
Conventional format ASN:X, i.e., 16b:32b

Route Distinguisher (RD)

BGP 64 bit extended community value First 16bit identify as RD type. Other 48 bit is variable
Conventional format ASN:X, i.e., 16b:32b
70

35

Distributing Customer Routes

Q: How does PER2 learn Rt Z? A: Either via BGP or statically configured
MPLS VPN Cloud LSR3

LSR2 LSR1

PER1

K1 LN
CR1

PER2

LN K

Network Z

Li - labels LSP

LNK2 data: vrf1 vrf1: RT1, RD1 table: Rt Z LNK2

CR2

71

Customer Routes Distributed via IBGP with Label

MPLS VPN Cloud LSR3

LSR2 LSR1

PER1

PER2

IBGP msg
CR1 RD1+Z, L4, RT1, PER2

LN K

Network Z

Li - labels LSP

LNK2 data: vrf1 vrf1: RT1, RD1 table: Rt Z L4,CR2,LNK2

CR2

72

36

Only vrfs with Matching RTs Import Route

Q: Why different RDs can be used? A: RDs ensure unique addresses and are NOT related to VPN connectivity! Unique RDs on all PEs help route reflectors balance load MPLS VPN Cloud LSR3

LNK1 data: vrf1 vrf1: RT1, RD2 table: Rt Z L4, PER2 PER2 L1, LSR1
CR1

LSR2 LSR1

PER1

PER2

LN K

Network Z

Li - labels LSP

LNK2 data: vrf1 vrf1: RT1, RD1 table: Rt Z L4,CR2,LNK2

CR2

73

CR1 learns RT Z
Q: How does CR1 learn Rt Z? A: Either via BGP or statically configured
MPLS VPN Cloud LSR3

LNK1 data: vrf1 vrf1: RT1, RD2 table: Rt Z L4, PER2 PER2 L1, LSR1
CR1

LSR2 LSR1

PER1

PER2 Network Z

K1 LN

table: Rt Z PER1,LNK1

Li - labels LSP

LNK2 data: vrf1 vrf1: RT1, RD1 table: Rt Z L4,CR2,LNK2

CR2

74

37

Packet for Rt Z forwarded by CR1

MPLS VPN Cloud LSR3

LNK1 data: vrf1 vrf1: RT1, RD1 table: Rt Z L4, PER2 PER2 L1, LSR1
CR1

LSR2 LSR1

PER1

PER2 Route Z

Z| packet table: Rt Z PER1,LNK1 LNK2 data: vrf1 vrf1: RT1, RD1 table: Rt Z L4,CR2,LNK2

CR2

Li - labels LSP

75

Top label is label-switched through interior

Q: What happens at end of LSP?
MPLS VPN Cloud LSR3 L2 pop

LNK1 data: vrf1 vrf1: RT1, RD1 table: Rt Z L4, PER2 PER2 L1, LSR1
CR1

L1 L2 LSR1

LSR2

PER1

L1|L4|Z| packet

PER2 Route Z

Li - labels LSP

LNK2 data: vrf1 vrf1: RT1, RD1 table: Rt Z L4,CR2,LNK2

CR2

76

38

Top label popped at end of LSP

Q: What next?
MPLS VPN Cloud LSR3

LSR2 LSR1

PER1

L4|Z| packet
PER2 Route Z

CR1

Li - labels LSP

LNK2 data: vrf1 vrf1: RT1, RD1 table: Rt Z L4,CR2,LNK2

CR2

77

Inner label determines egress interface and then is popped

Q: Is inner label necessary? A: No. An optimization. It saves an IP lookup
MPLS VPN Cloud LSR3

LSR2 LSR1

PER1

Z|packet
PER2 Route Z

CR1

Li - labels LSP

LNK2 data: vrf1 vrf1: RT1, RD1 table: Rt Z L4,CR2,LNK2

CR2

78

39

Purpose of BGP Label

Indicates which vrf and optionally which interface on the egress PER Locally, the egress PER will treat labels in two possible ways:
Non-aggregate label is associated with an external route
Will be switched directly to an outgoing interface IP header is not examined

Aggregate label is associated with a locally originated or directly connected route

Packet will be looked up in the vrf context

79

MPLS in Core Not Needed

MPLS for IGP domain serves as a tunneling method among PERs Could use other tunneling methods Advantages to MPLS: Internet draft to use IP or GRE tunneling
Full mesh of LSP tunnels automatically created Can use MPLS TE Automatically (treat vpnv4 BGP next hop as a recursive encapsulation) BGP/IPsec VPN <draft-declercq-bgp-ipsec-vpn-00.txt>

80

40

RFC 2547 Summary

Piggyback VPN information on BGP New address family New attributes for membership New Per-site forwarding tables (VRFs) Use MPLS Tunnels between PEs No need for VPN routes on backbone LSRs, only on PEs
81

MPLS VPN Security

Private routing table for each VPN (vrf) VPN membership identity associated with each access connection
VPN membership is not determined by IP header, only by interface (e.g., DLCI, VPI/VCI, PPP, VLAN tag). Label and RT for VPN attached to routes advertised for interface. Route and its matching label are only imported by routing tables that match the VPN RT. Impossible for a packet on a PVC in one vrf to spoof its way or jump into another vrf

82

41

Layer 2 VPNs vs. BGP/MPLS VPNs

Customer routing stays with customer May allow an easier transition for customers currently using Frame/ATM circuits Familiar paradigm Easier to extend to multiple providers Customer routing is outsourced to provider Transition may be complicated if customer has many extranets or multiple providers New peering paradigm Not clear how multiple provider will work (IMHO)

83

Summary
MPLS is an interesting and potentially valuable technology because it

provides an efficient and scalable tunneling mechanism provides an efficient and scalable mechanism for extending IP routing with explicit routes

84

42

More info on MPLS

MPLS working group
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mpls-charter.html

MPLS email list archive MPLS Resource Center

http://cell.onecall.net/cell-relay/archives/mpls/mpls.index.html

http://www.mplsrc.com

Peter Ashwood-Smiths NANOG Tutorial

http://www.nanog.org/mtg-9910/mpls.html

MPLS: Technology and Applications. By Bruce Davie and Yakov Rekhter. Morgan Kaufmann. 2000. MPLS: Is it all it's cracked up to be? Talk by Pravin K. Johri
http://buckaroo.mt.att.com/~pravin/docs/mpls.pdf
85

More info on MPLS TE

tewg working group
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/tewg-charter.html

NANOG Tutorial by Jeff Doyle and Chris Summers

http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0006/mpls.html

NANOG Tutorial by Robert Raszuk

http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0002/robert.html

86

43

More info on MPLS VPNs

PPVPN working group PPVPN Archive
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ppvpn-charter.html

http://nbvpn.francetelecom.com

NANOG Panel:Provider-Provisioned VPNs

http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0102/jessica.html

MPLS and VPN Architectures. By Ivan Pepelnjak and Jim Guichard. Cisco Press. 2001

87

44