- How to use electrical outlets and cheap lasers to steal data
- The botnet world is booming
- NTIA seeks volunteers to review broadband applications
- The 10 dumbest mistakes network managers make
- What's driving this university to IPv6? Going green
Back to main story: Carriers pitch a WAN nirvana
Carriers building IP-based next-generation network infrastructures are faced with the tough task of guaranteeing service levels and uptime requirements in a huge, global, but less-than-deterministic network environment.
Carriers skimping on enterprise services?
05/01/07
AT&T doubles IP network spending
03/13/07
To address this shortcoming of IP, carriers are examining two primary technologies: Transport Multi-protocol Label Switching (T-MPLS) and Nortel's Provider Backbone Transport (PBT). PBT also is called Provider Backbone Bridging-Traffic Engineering (PBB-TE) within the IEEE.
PBT is an Ethernet derivative intended to bring connection-oriented characteristics and deterministic behavior to Ethernet. It turns off Ethernet's Spanning Tree and media-access-control address-flooding and learning characteristics. That lets Ethernet behave more like a traditional carrier transport technology.
The key selling factor in its favor compared to T-MPLS, the traffic-oriented version of MPLS, is that it's based on Ethernet and can be implemented via switches, obviating the need for more costly MPLS-aware routers.
Unfortunately for PBT, it's relatively new and untried, whereas MPLS has been around for 10 years and has the backing of the major router vendors, including network king Cisco.
"If you look at the difference between PBT and T-MPLS, you could make an argument that they provide almost identical features and capabilities," says Thomas Nolle, president of the technology assessment firm CIMI and a Network World columnist.
"But PBT equipment is 33% cheaper. So the carriers are saying, 'Wait a minute. If I can get the same thing for less money, then why do I need the IP routing part?'
"And that's where the router guys are increasingly on the defensive."
< Previous story: Carriers pitch a WAN nirvana | Next story: 4 tips for building better wireless nets >
Partner Content
Simplify Your Branch Infrastructure
Learn how to simplify your branch infrastructure while dramatically increasing app performance with Citrix Branch Repeater.
Download the Free Info Kit
Next-Gen Load Balancing
Free Guide: “Next Gen Load Balancing: 8 Things You Need to Handle Today’s Network Traffic” shows you the functionality needed in your next load balancer.
Download the Free Guide
Accelerate Your Web Apps by up to 5x
Free Guide: “The Secret to Getting Maximum Speed from your Web Applications.” Learn how you can deliver Web apps up to 5x faster.
Download the Free Guide
Comments (4)
comparison between MPLS-TP and PBB-TEBy Anonymous on November 3, 2008, 4:16 amany solid comparisons?
Reply | Read entire comment
PBB-TE or PBTBy Anonymous on September 15, 2008, 9:06 amCan anbody provide a practicle case study
Reply | Read entire comment
Yes they are, search forBy Anonymous on June 24, 2007, 11:36 pmYes they are, search for MERS 8600.
Reply | Read entire comment
Do somebody knows if the OAM functions for PBT are already working?By Anonymous on June 22, 2007, 10:28 amDo somebody knows if the OAM functions for PBT are already working?... Re: The T-MPLS vs. PBT debate. The MPLS features are cool for transport, but the computing...
Reply | Read entire comment
View all comments