IPLC vs MPLS แตกต่างกันยังไง

[golfreeze]

https://community.cisco.com/t5/mpls/iplc-vs-mpls/td-p/1816046

AFAIK IPLC(International Private Leased Circuit) can use both L2VPN or L3VPN. Essentially, An IPLC (international private leased circuit) is a point-to-point private line used by an organization to communicate between offices that are geographically dispersed throughout the world.

For eg : telco like BT(british telecom) has network all over the world. So, you could have a leased line between 2 countries via BT.  You can use L2VPN if you want control over your IP routing . This architecture uses technologies like EoMPLS or AToM to transport data from one end to another.

You can also choose L3VPN which uses IP/MPLS for transport as well but the service provider is also involved in :L3 routing. So whichever technology you use, Service Providers use MPLS as the base transport protocol these days.

I hope this gives you some idea. Experts here on CSC can provide their ideas as well

[golfreeze]

http://datagrams.blogspot.com/2011/01/mpls-vs-iplc.html

MPLS Vs IPLC

MPLS is called multiprotocol because it works with the Internet IP, ATM, and frame relay network protocols. With reference to the OSI model, MPLS allows most packets to be forwarded at the layer 2 (switching) level rather than at the layer 3 (routing) level. In addition to moving traffic faster overall, MPLS makes it easy to manage a network for quality of service (QoS).
A Label Switch Path (LSP) can be established in MPLS that crosses multiple Layer 2 transports like ATM, Frame Relay or Ethernet. Thus, one of the true promises of MPLS is the ability to create end-to-end circuits, with specific performance characteristics, across any type of transport medium, eliminating the need for overlay networks or Layer 2 only control mechanisms.

IPLC basically uses Layer 3 (Routing) to build a path for the data to flow in the network. Data routing in an IPLC is done using complex route lookups based on the destination IP address. The routing hardware finds the shortest path between the source and destination IP addresses to send data. This can be a hardware intensive task in times of heavy traffic leading to slower data traffic speeds. With hardware becoming more powerful every day, this is not such a major issue.

However, IPLC has major drawbacks in situations where traffic engineering and setting performance characteristics for different classes of traffic are required. Factors like delay and jitter also come into the picture in an IPLC connection that can cause major drops in QoS levels. This can cause problems in networks where data like video-conferencing are used.
MPLS has an edge over IPLC on this front since it provides network administrators the ability to set the path traffic will take through the network, and set performance characteristics for a class of traffic.

If your network requirements are such that you only need point-to-point connectivity, an IPLC typically will cost less than an MPLS circuit. Since an IPLC is your own private circuit, you can use your managed switches to prioritize traffic. But if you have any near future to add a third node to this network, MPLS will be the best way to go

MPLS could provide at least 2 types of link for this.
a) You can have a layer 2 MPLS (which sort of pretends to be an Ethernet WAN link of various flavours).
this type of service normally needs Ethernet access at each site -so you can connect directly to your LAN switches (but you shouldstill route over the WAN to control what is going on).

Or go for a L3 service - tends to cost more, but more flexible, and likely to allow other services if you want them.
Then you have to decide whether you run the CE routers on the service, or get that bundled, or hook direct to your WAN switches.
Then decide what QoS you want if any, what speed access tails and what type of connections, then possibly how much bandwidth to be rate limited.

The flip side with MPLS is someone else is looking after it for you, and you can add more sites since you have connected to a "cloud" service.

[golfreeze]

https://www.rcrwireless.com/20140513/wireless/mpls-vs-vpn

In establishing connectivity between remote offices or network elements, enterprises have multiple options to consider. The basic conundrum is the question of whether to use a leased line, a Virtual Private Network (VPN) or an MPLS architecture. Although all three establish connectivity, the technologies are not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison. Leased lines are physical entities. VPNs can be provided over different network layers (Layer 2 or Layer 3). MPLS is a network traffic routing mechanism considered a layer 2.5 technology, and can also be used to provide VPN services.

Here are five factors to consider in the MPLS vs. VPN vs. leased line debate.

COST. Leased lines are the most expensive. VPNs are less costly and come in multiple flavors – layer 2 VPNs are more secure, layer 3 VPNs are faster to deploy and less expensive but exposed to the risks and congestion of running over the public Internet. MPLS increases efficiency compared to relying on IP-based routing.

“It really comes down to the level of dedicated service. The more dedicated the service, the more costly it tends to be,” said Eric Bozich, vice president of marketing for CenturyLink’s wholesale division.

SECURITY. Leased lines win out in terms of security, as they are dedicated only to a specific customer’s traffic. VPNs over the public Internet are the least secure. MPLS falls somewhere in the middle, as it emulates the “feel” of a dedicated line but still relies on shared network elements. MPLS has no inherent encryption and its security depends heavily on the network core being secure, according to Professor Jose Santos of the University of Colorado at Boulder’s Telecommunications Department.

RELIABILITY. Again, leased lines come out in front. VPNs can be subject to the variability and congestion of the open Internet as traffic makes its way from one network point to another, as it shares the virtual road with other traffic. MPLS allows prioritization of traffic and establishment of quality of service levels, including the definition of fallback paths to ensure reliability in the event of outages within the network requiring traffic to be re-routed.

SCALABILITY: Leased lines are the most difficult to scale, both because of the time needed for deployment and the expense. Layer 3 VPNs are quick and easy to deploy, but can become complex to manage as a business grows. MPLS is widely accepted as an efficient technology that is easily scaled.

OPERATIONAL DATA NEEDS: This includes the question of the type of data flowing and the business’ network needs. Does the business require only point-to-point communication between two locations? Point to multi-point? A mesh network covering multiple locations, where each branch must be able to communicate with all others? Leased lines again fall to the rear in terms of easily addressing complex network needs, particularly for medium-sized businesses. MPLS has both point-to-point and one-to-many capabilities for communication.

According to research company Infonetics, both MPLS and Ethernet VPN services have been growing quickly, and the growth is expected to continue.

“The move from legacy frame relay, ATM, and leased line services onto Ethernet and IP services is quickening as businesses put a razor-sharp focus on staying competitive in today’s highly interconnected, mobile, video- and cloud-oriented world,” notes Michael Howard, co-founder and principal analyst of Infonetics Research. “By 2015, ATM and frame relay will virtually vanish, while private leased lines will be around a bit longer.”

Howard added that despite expected slowdowns in Europe, Infonetics expects solid growth ahead for both MPLS and Ethernet services, with the two topping $81 billion worldwide by 2016. Global Ethernet and MPLS IP VPN service revenue grew a combined 13% in 2011 to just over $50 billion, driven by increasing data traffic, cloud services, and businesses trying to cut their costs. Infonetics noted that more than 90 percent of spending on mobile backhaul equipment in 2011 was on IP/Ethernet gear.

[golfreeze]

Real-Time and Mission-Critical
IPLC Service  provides customers with dedicated pure Layer 1 international data bandwidth for delivering real-time and mission-critical applications including data, voice and video.

Built to Deliver
We have designed our network to deliver resilience. Our network has a significant number of circuit bearers and multiple diverse PoPs in key countries and cities enabling us to re-route traffic to avoid a single point of failure. We also offer cross-border connections for every network topology and bandwidth need.

Security and Reliability
With truly end-to-end management we keep your communications secure and offer up to 100% service level commitment to major destinations around the world. We offer protected, unprotected and premium protection services to be sure that you are getting the level of security appropriate to your organization.

End-to-end management means that you can be confident that your mission-critical applications are secure and supported by the bandwidth they need.