A number of different technologies were previously deployed with essentially identical goals, such as frame relay and ATM. MPLS technologies have evolved with the strengths and weaknesses of ATM in mind. Many network engineers agree that ATM should be replaced with a protocol that requires less overhead, while providing connection-oriented services for variable-length frames. MPLS is currently replacing some of these technologies in the marketplace. It is highly possible that MPLS will completely replace these technologies in the future, thus aligning these technologies with current and future technology needs.
In particular, MPLS dispenses with the cell-switching and signaling-protocol baggage of ATM. MPLS recognizes that small ATM cells are not needed in the core of modern networks, since modern optical networks (as of 2008) are so fast (at 40 Gbit/s and beyond) that even full-length 1500 byte packets do not incur significant real-time queuing delays (the need to reduce such delays — e.g., to support voice traffic — was the motivation for the cell nature of ATM).
While the traffic management benefits of migrating to MPLS are quite valuable (better reliability, increased performance), there is a significant loss of visibility and access into the MPLS cloud for IT departments.
MPLS was originally proposed by a group of engineers from Ipsilon Networks, but their "IP Switching" technology, which was defined only to work over ATM, did not achieve market dominance. Cisco Systems, Inc. introduced a related proposal, not restricted to ATM transmission, called "Tag Switching" when it was a Cisco proprietary proposal, and was renamed "Label Switching" when it was handed over to the IETF for open standardization. The IETF work involved proposals from other vendors, and development of a consensus protocol that combined features from several vendors' work.
One original motivation was to allow the creation of simple high-speed switches, since for a significant length of time it was impossible to forward IP packets entirely in hardware. However, advances in VLSI have made such devices possible. Therefore the advantages of MPLS primarily revolve around the ability to support multiple service models and perform traffic management. MPLS also offers a robust recovery framework that goes beyond the simple protection rings of synchronous optical networking (SONET/SDH).
These MPLS-labeled packets are switched after a Label Lookup/Switch instead of a lookup into the IP table. As mentioned above, when MPLS was conceived, Label Lookup and Label Switching were faster than a RIB lookup because they could take place directly within the switched fabric and not the CPU.
The entry and exit points of an MPLS network are called Label Edge Routers (LER), which, respectively, push an MPLS label onto the incoming packet and pop it off the outgoing packet. Routers that perform routing based only on the label are called Label Switch Routers (LSR). In some applications, the packet presented to the LER already may have a label, so that the new LSR pushes a second label onto the packet. For more information see Penultimate Hop Popping.
Labels are distributed between LERs and LSRs using the “Label Distribution Protocol” (LDP). Label Switch Routers in an MPLS network regularly exchange label and reachability information with each other using standardized procedures in order to build a complete picture of the network they can then use to forward packets. Label Switch Paths (LSPs) are established by the network operator for a variety of purposes, such as to create network-based IP Virtual Private Networks or to route traffic along specified paths through the network. In many respects, LSPs are no different than PVCs in ATM or Frame Relay networks, except that they are not dependent on a particular Layer 2 technology.
In the specific context of an MPLS-based Virtual Private Network (VPN), LSRs that function as ingress and/or egress routers to the VPN are often called PE (Provider Edge) routers. Devices that function only as transit routers are similarly called P (Provider) routers. See RFC 2547. The job of a P router is significantly easier than that of a PE router, so they can be less complex and may be more dependable because of this.
When an unlabeled packet enters the ingress router and needs to be passed on to an MPLS tunnel, the router first determines the forwarding equivalence class (FEC) the packet should be in, and then inserts one or more labels in the packet's newly-created MPLS header. The packet is then passed on to the next hop router for this tunnel.
When a labeled packet is received by an MPLS router, the topmost label is examined. Based on the contents of the label a swap, push (impose) or pop (dispose) operation can be performed on the packet's label stack. Routers can have prebuilt lookup tables that tell them which kind of operation to do based on the topmost label of the incoming packet so they can process the packet very quickly.
In a swap operation the label is swapped with a new label, and the packet is forwarded along the path associated with the new label.
In a push operation a new label is pushed on top of the existing label, effectively "encapsulating" the packet in another layer of MPLS. This allows hierarchical routing of MPLS packets. Notably, this is used by MPLS VPNs.
In a pop operation the label is removed from the packet, which may reveal an inner label below. This process is called "decapsulation". If the popped label was the last on the label stack, the packet "leaves" the MPLS tunnel. This is usually done by the egress router, but see PHP below.
During these operations, the contents of the packet below the MPLS Label stack are not examined. Indeed transit routers typically need only to examine the topmost label on the stack. The forwarding of the packet is done based on the contents of the labels, which allows "protocol-independent packet forwarding" that does not need to look at a protocol-dependent routing table and avoids the expensive IP longest prefix match at each hop.
At the egress router, when the last label has been popped, only the payload remains. This can be an IP packet, or any of a number of other kinds of payload packet. The egress router must therefore have routing information for the packet's payload, since it must forward it without the help of label lookup tables. An MPLS transit router has no such requirement.
In some special cases, the last label can also be popped off at the penultimate hop (the hop before the egress router). This is called Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP). This may be interesting in cases where the egress router has lots of packets leaving MPLS tunnels, and thus spends inordinate amounts of CPU time on this. By using PHP, transit routers connected directly to this egress router effectively offload it, by popping the last label themselves.
MPLS can make use of existing ATM network infrastructure, as its labeled flows can be mapped to ATM virtual circuit identifiers, and vice versa.
Extensions of the BGP protocol, starting with RFC 2547, can be used to manage an MPLS path, including RFC 3107 and RFC 4781. .
An MPLS header does not identify the type of data carried inside the MPLS path. If one wants to carry two different types of traffic between the same two routers, with different treatment from the core routers for each type, one has to establish a separate MPLS path for each type of traffic.
In the event of a network element failure when recovery mechanisms are employed at the IP layer, restoration may take several seconds which is unacceptable for real-time applications (such as VoIP). In contrast, MPLS local protection meets the requirements of real-time applications with recovery times comparable to those of SONET rings (up to 50ms).
Telcos often sell frame relay to businesses looking for a cheaper alternative to dedicated lines; its use in different geographic areas depended greatly on governmental and telecommunication companies' policies.
AT&T is currently (as of June 2007) the largest frame relay service provider in the United States, with local networks in 22 states, plus national and international networks. This number is expected to change between 2007 and 2009 when most of these frame relay contracts expire. Many customers are likely to migrate from frame relay to MPLS over IP or Ethernet within the next two years, which in many cases will reduce costs and improve manageability and performance of their wide area networks.
The most significant difference is in the transport and encapsulation methods. MPLS is able to work with variable length packets while ATM transports fixed-length (53 byte) cells. Packets must be segmented, transported and re-assembled over an ATM network using an adaption layer, which adds significant complexity and overhead to the data stream. MPLS, on the other hand, simply adds a label to the head of each packet and transmits it on the network.
Differences exist, as well, in the nature of the connections. An MPLS connection (LSP) is uni-directional - allowing data to flow in only one direction between two endpoints. Establishing two-way communications between endpoints requires a pair of LSPs to be established. Because 2 LSPs are required for connectivity, data flowing in the forward direction may use a different path from data flowing in the reverse direction. ATM point-to-point connections (Virtual Circuits), on the other hand, are bi-directional, allowing data to flow in both directions over the same path (bi-directional are only SVC ATM connections; PVC ATM connections are uni-directional).
Both ATM and MPLS support tunneling of connections inside connections. MPLS uses label stacking to accomplish this while ATM uses Virtual Paths. MPLS can stack multiple labels to form tunnels within tunnels. The ATM Virtual Path Indicator (VPI) and Virtual Circuit Indicator (VCI) are both carried together in the cell header, limiting ATM to a single level of tunnelling.
The biggest single advantage that MPLS has over ATM is that it was designed from the start to be complementary to IP. Modern routers are able to support both MPLS and IP natively across a common interface allowing network operators great flexibility in network design and operation. ATM's incompatibilities with IP require complex adaptation, making it comparatively less suitable for today's predominantly IP networks.
IEEE 1355 is a completely unrelated technology that does something similar in hardware.
IPv6 references: Grossetete, Patrick, IPv6 over MPLS, Cisco Systems 2001; Juniper Networks IPv6 and Infranets White Paper; Juniper Networks DoD's Research and Engineering Community White Paper.
MPLS supports a range of access technologies, including T1, ATM and frame relay. In April 2008, New Edge Networks announced traffic prioritization on its MPLS network available via less expensive DSL access. Previously, traffic prioritization was not possible across DSL connections.
MPLS provides networks with a more efficient way to manage applications and move information between locations. With the convergence of voice, video and data applications, business networks face increasing traffic demands. MPLS enables class of service (CoS) tagging and prioritization of network traffic, so administrators may specify which applications should move across the network ahead of others. This function makes an MPLS network especially important to firms that need to ensure the performance of low-latency applications such as VoIP and their other business-critical functions. MPLS carriers differ on the number of classes of service they offer and in how these CoS tiers are priced.
Publication No. WO/2010/034225 Published on April 1, Assigned to Huawei Technologies for Item Information, Label Switching Router Generation Method, System (Chinese Inventors)
Apr 01, 2010; GENEVA, April 3 -- Xiao Lai, Jingbo Li, Xinwei An and Shaoxing Mu, all from China, have developed a method for generating item...
Patent No. 7,590,048 Issued on Sept. 15, Assigned to Fujitsu for Label Switching Router (Japanese Inventor)
Sep 15, 2009; ALEXANDRIA, Va., Sept. 15 -- Masami Doukai, Kawasaki, Japan, has developed a label switching router. The inventor was issued U.S....
US Patent Issued to Huawei Technologies on Oct. 25 for "Method for Handling Fault Between an Egress Label Switching Router and a Data Device Connected Therewith" (Chinese Inventor)
Oct 27, 2011; ALEXANDRIA, Va., Oct. 27 -- United States Patent no. 8,045,452, issued on Oct. 25, was assigned to Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd....
US Patent Issued to Huawei Technologies on Aug. 31 for "Label Assigning Method, Label Replacing Method and Label Switching Router" (Chinese Inventors)
Sep 01, 2010; ALEXANDRIA, Va., Sept. 4 -- United States Patent no. 7,787,457, issued on Aug. 31, was assigned to Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd....