Mario Eguiluz AlebictoMario Eguiluz Alebicto

1. Backhaul looks for candidates 1. Backhaul looks for candidates

2. Candidate 1: Provider Transport Backbone (PBT) 2. Candidate 1: Provider Transport Backbone (PBT)

INDEXINDEX

3. Candidate 2: Transport MPLS (T-MPLS) 3. Candidate 2: Transport MPLS (T-MPLS)

4. And now…What happens?4. And now…What happens?

Candidates for the Backhaul: PBB-TE vs T-MPLS

• Telecom operators know that it is time to upgrade their mobile backhaul, in order to prepare it for the next generation services and their demands. Wireless incoming technologies, such as WiMAX and LTE are going to be too much for the present backhaul.

• Lets see 2 of the possible candidates for the upgrade of the mobile backhaul.

1. Backhaul looks for candidates 1. Backhaul looks for candidates

Candidates for the Backhaul: PBB-TE vs T-MPLS

• ITU-T (802.1 Ethernet working group 802.1Qay)

• OBJECTIVE: To provide carrier class features over Ethernet networks

2. Candidate 1: Provider Transport Backbone (PBT) 2. Candidate 1: Provider Transport Backbone (PBT)

Candidates for the Backhaul: PBB-TE vs T-MPLS

• Based on Ethernet, PBB-TE has it inherit advantages, but it also has it disadvantages, because the transport network requires special features which are not present in Ethernet.

2. Candidate 1: Provider Transport Backbone (PBT) 2. Candidate 1: Provider Transport Backbone (PBT)

Candidates for the Backhaul: PBB-TE vs T-MPLS

• PBB-TE appears to complete those missing features of Ethernet and to transform it into an optimal transport technology:

– PBB-TE forgets about the self-learning techniques: management of the

network goes better by eliminating broadcasting packets flooding the network.

– Pseudo-wires supported.

– It provides link protection with pre-calculated paths. The change between the original path and the protection path is very fast: the protection path is already designed.

2. Candidate 1: Provider Transport Backbone (PBT) 2. Candidate 1: Provider Transport Backbone (PBT)

Candidates for the Backhaul: PBB-TE vs T-MPLS

– It is said that up to 65-70% of the total cost of a telecom operator is the OPEX. If Ethernet is a cost efficient technology, and the OPEX represents a huge percent over the total cost, then Ethernet can save a lot of money in this point.

2. Candidate 1: Provider Transport Backbone (PBT) 2. Candidate 1: Provider Transport Backbone (PBT)

Candidates for the Backhaul: PBB-TE vs T-MPLS

– Use of OAM packets over the user data link. A good OAM support can bring optimal control over the network resources, decreasing the OPEX of the carrier (again!).

– It supports different services types with different requirements of bandwidth, latency, etc. The backhaul will be composed by different mobile generations.

– PBB-TE allows Virtual LANs (VLANs) in a connection-oriented scenario. This feature is present in SDH protocol.

2. Candidate 1: Provider Transport Backbone (PBT) 2. Candidate 1: Provider Transport Backbone (PBT)

PBT

OAM VLANsDifferentServices

Candidates for the Backhaul: PBB-TE vs T-MPLS

With these new features, Ethernet technology presents itself as a good candidate for the backhaul.

Would MPLS compete with PBB-TE?

2. Candidate 1: Provider Transport Backbone (PBT) 2. Candidate 1: Provider Transport Backbone (PBT)

Candidates for the Backhaul: PBB-TE vs T-MPLS

• MPLS (Multi Protocol Label Switching) is a well-known standard among telecom operators around the World. It has been studied and used by operators during the last 10 years

• ITU-T approved the T-MPLS (2006-2007).

• Some complex features (Layer 3) have been removed, because they don't seem to be necessary in the transport network. T-MPLS focuses on the L2 transport.

3. Candidate 2: Transport MPLS (T-MPLS) 3. Candidate 2: Transport MPLS (T-MPLS)

Candidates for the Backhaul: PBB-TE vs T-MPLS

• New features have been added. MPLS-T acts like a circuit switched technology in some aspects.

3. Candidate 2: Transport MPLS (T-MPLS) 3. Candidate 2: Transport MPLS (T-MPLS)

• IP/MPLS is an alternative to T-MPLS? Yes but…The use of IP and MPLS together can reach almost every requirement, but it seems to have problems with a very important one: the cost control scalability with low costs.

• The objective of T-MPLS is to mix the advantages of MPLS with some new features: end to end easy management, improved OAM, different client layers, end to end protection, good scalability and low costs.

Candidates for the Backhaul: PBB-TE vs T-MPLS

The best points of T-MPLS:

3. Candidate 2: Transport MPLS (T-MPLS) 3. Candidate 2: Transport MPLS (T-MPLS)

Candidates for the Backhaul: PBB-TE vs T-MPLS

After summarizing the general characteristics of PBB-TE and T-MPLS, one can question: Which one is better? Are there other options for the backhaul?

4. And now…What happens?4. And now…What happens?

None is better than the other. The situation of each carrier will decide the technology that best fit in its network. The telecom operators will choose the candidate that best fit with their preferred technology, according to the rest of their network.

and...

Yes, there are other options for the backhaul. There are people that prefer Ethernet or MPLS in their classical form, there are some new schemas like MMBI. Several options are possible, none is better than others, they just fit better in one network or in other…Telecom operators must choose their best case based on their own situation.

Mario Eguiluz AlebictoMario Eguiluz Alebicto

BLOGBLOG