What are the most common MPLS switching techniques for traffic engineering?

由人工智能和领英社区提供技术支持

MPLS, or Multiprotocol Label Switching, is a technique that allows network operators to create and manage traffic flows across different paths in their networks. MPLS can improve network performance, reliability, and security by using labels to identify and forward packets based on predefined criteria. Traffic engineering, or TE, is the process of optimizing the use of network resources to meet the service level agreements, or SLAs, of different types of traffic. TE can help network operators to avoid congestion, balance load, reduce latency, and increase resilience. In this article, you will learn about the most common MPLS switching techniques for traffic engineering and how they differ from each other.

此文章中的业界达人

由社区从 10 条内容中精选。了解更多

Thomas Graf

Distinguished Network Engineer and Network Analytics Architect at Swisscom
Leonardo Furtado

Senior Network Development Engineer @ Amazon Web Services (AWS) | Network Engineering | Technical Instructor
Luis Ma.

Ing. en Telecomunicaciones y Electrónica (Ingeniero de Planeamiento de la red)

1 Label Distribution Protocol

Label Distribution Protocol, or LDP, is a standard protocol that enables MPLS routers to exchange label information and establish label-switched paths, or LSPs, for traffic. LDP uses a hop-by-hop approach, which means that each router assigns and forwards labels based on its local routing table and the destination IP address of the packet. LDP is simple and scalable, but it does not support explicit routing, which means that network operators cannot specify the exact path that a packet should follow. LDP also does not consider the network topology, traffic demand, or link capacity when assigning labels, which can lead to suboptimal resource utilization and performance degradation.

添加您的观点

Thomas Graf

Distinguished Network Engineer and Network Analytics Architect at Swisscom
(已编辑)
举报内容
Has been superseded by routing protocols which not only advertising an IP path but also the transport label such as BGP labeled unicast defined in RFC 8277, IS-IS SR Extension defined in RFC 8667 or OSPF SR Extension defined in RFC 8665.

已翻译

赞
Luis Ma.

Ing. en Telecomunicaciones y Electrónica (Ingeniero de Planeamiento de la red)
举报内容
LDP también es completamente dependiente del protocolo IGP seleccionado e implementado, y este a su vez se configura en base a la topología de la red. Por lo que redes muy cambiantes topológica mente hablando o con un Dise?o de IGP complejo comprometen al LDP.

已翻译

赞
Muhammad Rafaqat Khan

General Electric || Renewable Energy || System Manager
举报内容
LDP is a fundamental component of MPLS, facilitating the efficient distribution and utilization of labels for packet forwarding. Its role in establishing label-switched paths enhances the performance, scalability, and flexibility of MPLS networks.

已翻译

赞
Geórgia Brito

Finance | Data | Power BI | Controller | Management | Projects | Analysis | VBA | Automations
举报内容
A principal fun??o do LDP é a distribui??o de rótulos entre roteadores de distribui??o de rótulos, criando ent?o as LSPs. Com seu mecanismo de descoberta de LSR permite que elas possam se encontrar estabelecendo comunica??o. A utiliza??o conjunta com o TCP garante a entrega de mensagens.

已翻译

赞
Omogbai Martins

Incident Management Specialist || Telecommunications Generalist || Engineering Professional || Fiber Optics Specialist || Research and Technical Writing Consultant || RF Optimization (Planning) Engineer
举报内容
? LDP is commonly used for MPLS label assignment, allowing routers to distribute labels for specific routes. ? RSVP-TE enables the establishment of explicit paths for MPLS traffic, supporting traffic engineering by reserving network resources along the specified route. ? CBR involves setting constraints, such as bandwidth requirements, for MPLS traffic, allowing routers to dynamically choose paths based on network conditions and available resources.

已翻译

赞

2 Resource Reservation Protocol

Resource Reservation Protocol, or RSVP, is another standard protocol that enables MPLS routers to exchange label information and establish LSPs for traffic. RSVP uses a constraint-based approach, which means that each router assigns and forwards labels based on the requirements and preferences of the traffic. RSVP supports explicit routing, which means that network operators can specify the exact path that a packet should follow. RSVP also supports admission control, which means that each router can accept or reject a label request based on the availability and suitability of its resources. RSVP can improve network performance, reliability, and security by ensuring that each LSP meets the SLAs of the traffic. However, RSVP is more complex and less scalable than LDP, as it requires more signaling and state maintenance.

添加您的观点

Thomas Graf

Distinguished Network Engineer and Network Analytics Architect at Swisscom
举报内容
RSVP is still being used in network operators but superseded by Segment Routing as defined in RFC 8402 and Routing Policy in RFC 9256. As to my knowledge the RSVP workung group has been concluded and active development is limited.

已翻译

赞

3 Segment Routing

Segment Routing, or SR, is a newer technique that enables MPLS routers to forward packets based on a list of segments, or identifiers, that are encoded in the packet header. SR uses a source-based approach, which means that the sender router determines the path and the segments for each packet. SR supports both hop-by-hop and explicit routing, which means that network operators can choose between the default routing behavior or a customized path for each packet. SR also supports traffic engineering, as it allows network operators to optimize the use of network resources based on various criteria, such as latency, bandwidth, or cost. SR can simplify network operations, reduce signaling overhead, and enhance network flexibility by eliminating the need for complex label distribution protocols.

添加您的观点

Thomas Graf

Distinguished Network Engineer and Network Analytics Architect at Swisscom
举报内容
Applicable to the MPLS and the IPv6 data-plane. For both, data-plane visibility has been provided by RFC 9160 and RFC 9487. Supported by a wide range of control-plane protocols such as BGP, IS-IS and OSPF. Migration strategies between MPLS-SR and SRv6 are currently under development at the SPRING working group at IETF.

已翻译

赞

4 Comparison Table

To summarize, here is a comparison table that shows the main features and differences of the three MPLS switching techniques for traffic engineering:

| Feature | LDP | RSVP | SR |

| --- | --- | --- | --- |

| Admission control | No | Yes | No |

| Traffic engineering | No | Yes | Yes |

添加您的观点

Thomas Graf

Distinguished Network Engineer and Network Analytics Architect at Swisscom
(已编辑)
举报内容
This table is not representative and states false informations. LDP and RSVP can’t be compared since LDP doesn’t support Traffic Engineering capabilities. Segment Routing has two data-planes, MPLS and IPv6. SRv6 scales higher due to the support of route summarization and IPv6 being 128 bit vs MPLS being 20 bit, therefore having a bigger address space. Bigger address space requires network processors capable of parsing bigger address headers. This shortcoming has being addressed by uSID as defined in draft draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression.

已翻译

赞

5 Here’s what else to consider

This is a space to share examples, stories, or insights that don’t fit into any of the previous sections. What else would you like to add?

添加您的观点

Leonardo Furtado

Senior Network Development Engineer @ Amazon Web Services (AWS) | Network Engineering | Technical Instructor
举报内容
Although the Segment Routing approach has many beauties and advantages, it can still face scalability issues in large network cases. The maximum size of the label stack in segment routing architectures depends on the particular hardware and software implementation. Legacy hardware can push a maximum of 3-5 labels, while more advanced hardware, like the Trio chipset, can push up to 16 labels. The PLR may not be able to push large label stacks on the packet, so it is advisable to consult the documentation and specifications of the specific network devices being used to determine the maximum label stack size supported.

已翻译

赞
Thomas Graf

Distinguished Network Engineer and Network Analytics Architect at Swisscom
(已编辑)
举报内容
Network Visibility, Data Plane Migration strategies, Control Plane support, vendor coverage and interoperability are key points to be considered when architecting next generation networks.

已翻译

赞

Telecommunications Engineering

+ 关注

给文章评分

我们借助人工智能创建了此文章。您认为这篇文章怎么样？

很棒不太好

举报此文章

查看全部

What are the most common MPLS switching techniques for traffic engineering?

1

2

3

4

5

1 Label Distribution Protocol

2 Resource Reservation Protocol

3 Segment Routing

4 Comparison Table

5 Here’s what else to consider

Telecommunications Engineering

给文章评分

感谢您的反馈

更多Telecommunications Engineering相关文章

更多相关阅读内容

What are the most common MPLS switching techniques for traffic engineering?

1

2

3

4

5

1 Label Distribution Protocol

2 Resource Reservation Protocol

3 Segment Routing

4 Comparison Table

5 Here’s what else to consider

Telecommunications Engineering

给文章评分

感谢您的反馈

查看其他技能