40 likes | 151 Views
MPLS Interconnect - Implications Network Engineering – January 2005. C&W MPLS Network IC – Scope. Direct NNIs with other carrier MPLS networks in ‘double figures’ Similar number of indirect connections to direct ones Mostly in EU Significant number of additional ones in pipeline
E N D
MPLS Interconnect- Implications Network Engineering – January 2005
C&W MPLS Network IC – Scope • Direct NNIs with other carrier MPLS networks in ‘double figures’ • Similar number of indirect connections to direct ones • Mostly in EU • Significant number of additional ones in pipeline • Transparent Class of Service (ie honour customer’s CoS/TOS bits) • To date C&W have experienced no significant security or integrity problems © 2005 Cable and Wireless plc
MPLS Interconnect – BT ‘Challenges’ • Digital Wrapper – Labels within Labels • C&W does not employ label stacking across NNI, hence no issue • Control Plane Challenge – control plane runs in-band allowing IP across NNI = security risk • C&W does not permit native IP across NNI (Option B RSC2547 S.10) • OAM challenge – requires protocols allowing identification of which operators network is at fault • C&W does not allow access to PE routers; provides proxy servers which give visibility of relevant configuration information • QoS Challenge – QoS not consistent across network and degenerates to lowest common denominator • Solution requires mapping of code point marking © 2005 Cable and Wireless plc
Summary • This response is not based on detailed study! • C&W MPLS interconnect experience to date has not been problematical from a security/integrity viewpoint • Agree that there are challenges to be met, but confident that there are solutions to the issues raised • C&W SMEs will participate in detailed discussions in due course (TSG?) © 2005 Cable and Wireless plc