When is MPLS the Best Choice For Your Network Backbone?

You have an often confusing menu of choices streamyx combo mobile your voice/data network today. A hot option for multi-site networks is MPLS (Multi-Protocol Label Switching). Is MPLS broadband service providers right choice for your business?

MPLS provides for use of short tails into a large network. The tail price being a larger proportion high-speed broadband any connectivity cost. Therefore, MPLS works out very well when compared to long distance point to point kuala lumpur city tour or when connectiong multiple sites.

VPLS the new generation of MPLS enables multi-site to multi-site connectivity similar to having a WAN all on the same hotel subang subnet. This reduces single points of failure and provides for greater control and facilities the roll out of new services across a WAN as the end user doesn't require any technical knowledge to deploy mult-level QoS and virtual switching between sites. In layer 2 VPLS the network is completely transparent to the end customer.

MPLS usually is a cheap way of connecting several offices point to point for data transfer, and once you pull that one, expanding it to voice is plain and cheap. It all depends what technology you generally use to connect several points together.

MPLS is the best choice when you are running latency sensitive applications over your WAN. Also, if your business has multiple locations, MPLS is a great way to have redundancy built into your WAN.

MPLS brings the advantages of dedicated links in the cost of shared IP networks, with multiservice capabilities and support for traffic engineering as well as QoS. MPLS also provides faster operation on a shared service provider network by using label switching instead of IP routing table lookup at every hop. You can create both point to point or multipoint VPNs using MPLS.

So the streamyx service centre is, when you want a single converged last mile (Services-voice/data/video/internet) for multiple locations in a cost lower than dedicated links ..... while having the efficiency as good as Or near to dedicated/TDM/ATM links. Then "MPLS is The Choice."

A couple additional comments based upon my carrier experience. MPLS is appropriate for streamyx phone number data because the technology supports trafic prioritization (QoS). An additional consideration is that most carriers have standardized their engineering and network operations on supporting network christian internet dating VPNs. Consequently, you will be able to negotiate better SLAs from your Service Provider. One should also plan an end-to-end QoS strategy for your applications. Ensure you are aware of the application performance requirements prior to designing your network.

To summarize, the positive attributes of MPLS are the flexibility of access methods and best broadband supported, the scalability of bandwidth demands, and of course, the QoS and traffic prioritization capabilities.

Please malaya" "malaysia a warning about the last mile provider. If you can find one provider to cover all of your locations (including the last mile), then this will cause you a lot less headaches.

Michael is the owner of FreedomFire Communications....including DS3-Bandwidth.com. Michael also authors Broadband Nation where you're always welcome to drop in and catch up on the latest BroadBand news, tips, insights, and ramblings for the masses.

There's not a broadband provider out there who wouldn't instantly begin billing you by the byte if they thought you (the consumer) would sign off on it. Unfortunately for them, Time Warner Cable's recent PR disaster illustrated that consumers aren't sold on low caps and high overages when broadband delivery costs continue to drop. Many customers may be stupid, but they can apparently read Time Warner Cable's 10-K form, which shows that flat-rate billing has provided Time Warner Cable with very healthy profits.

Meanwhile, Verizon currently doesn't cap or meter their FiOS customers, which acts as a deterrent for competitors in Verizon markets eager to implement metered billing. Pushing metered billing in a FiOS market puts a carrier at a marketing and competitive disadvantage, something Time Warner Cable was well aware of when they hoisted their metered billing trials upon consumers, but only in non-FiOS markets. Even then, Time Warner Cable had to deal with Frontier Communications scrapping their own cap plans to gain a competitive edge.

As we've stated all along, the only way this market sees a shift from flat-rate to metered billing is if the entire industry moves that direction en masse -- leaving customers with no ability to vote with their wallet. Right now, Verizon stands as the finger in the dam. While their GPON fiber to the home architecture currently has the capacity to make such limits unnecessary, Verizon also faces NY-metro area competition from Cablevision, who also doesn't cap and has gone on the record to say metered billing confuses customers.

But things could change, given the temptation of higher revenues. We've spoken to Verizon in the past about the possibility of capped or metered FiOS service, and they've chosen their words carefully -- leaving the option for metered billing open. In conversations this week with the Washington Post, Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg makes it very clear that the company is considering the possibility of some kind of metered usage, and is concerned that Google and consumer advocates could restrict the option through legislation:

Verizon opposes such regulation, saying not all data are equal and that consumers who consume more bandwidth through downloads of big email hosting service files, for example, shouldn't be charged the same as lighter Internet users. . . Seidenberg said Google "wants for us not to be able to differentiate but set a standard that would shift all costs of building a network to us and so that we are treated as the lowest denominator common carrier.

Except Google never said Verizon couldn't charge different prices for different tiers of service, and the strange telco belief that other people should be subsidizing their network builds was precisely the kind of stupid logic that started the network neutrality debate back in 2005. Verizon (and their paid mouthpieces) often suggest Google is a bandwidth freeloader, despite Google's huge investment in architecture. Verizon's real fear, of course, is becoming a dumb pipe over which content operators make a killing.

Verizon's lone legitimate concern is that poorly crafted network neutrality legislation might prevent the company from engaging in innovative new billing models. Not all users are against caps. Consumers so far just haven't seen any pricing proposals that offer them a better value over existing flat-rate pricing tiers, and carriers have yet to show hard evidence that such limitations are necessary. It's not entirely outside the realm of possibility that carriers could develop application and consumption cable internet speed plans that deliver value.

It's just incredibly unlikely, given we're talking about incumbents in protected duopolies who are often only innovative when it comes to creating the illusion of value with their plans -- not value itself. It's hard to think that carriers who've spent the last decade milking consumers for every penny (bogus fees, forced bundles, fees for in-person service, fewer free services like newsgroups, more ads) are going to really be focused on consumer broadband and phone The metered billing push is about creating value -- just for investors, not consumers.

You can be absolutely sure that Verizon's tempted by metered billing, and if the telco decides to move on the idea, you can expect a massive public relations push aimed at convincing you per-byte service is in your best interests. Given Verizon's expertise at PR and policy, it won't resemble Time Warner Cable's recent ham-handed attempt, either. If you're interested in the future of metered billing, keep one eye on Verizon.
read comment(s)