Evolution of the Current Telecommunications Networks and the Next
Generation Optical Networks
Cebrail TAùKIN 1 Hayrettin EVøRGEN2 Hüseyin EKøZ3
1
Türk Telekom Genel Müdürlü÷ü, 06103 Aydınlıkevler-Ankara / TURKIYE
2,3
Sakarya Üniversitesi, 4 Osmangazi Üniversitesi
cebrail.taskin@turktelekom.com.tr ekiz@sakarya.edu.tr
Abstract
During the years between 1995 and 2000, there
had been a strong competition between IP and ATM.
MPLS that was approved by IETF in 1997, seems to
end this competition with combination of best features
of IP and ATM. MPLmS that is the equivalent of
MPLS in optical networks, was designed in 1999.
Afterwards, a new version of MPLmS, that is to say
GMPLS, was developed in 2000 by IETF. Routing and
signalling protocols that are supported by MPLS were
extended to support GMPLS. The broadband boom,
specifically growing data demand in high speed, and
increasing bandwidth requirements has caused the
evolution of the current transport networks. As a
consequence, the IP over WDM networks, that
integrate the traditional WDM networks having
bandwidths of terabits and IP networks on which all
applications run, has been developed. This article
contains information on the MPLS, MPLmS and
GMPLS network architectures which started to work
on network backbones as a result of the evolution of
telecommunications networks and new generation IP
over WDM networks.
Keywords: Current Telecommunications Networks,
MPLS, MPLmS, GMPLS and IP over WDM
1. Introduction
During the past 5 years, Asynchronous Transfer
Mode (ATM) became the dominant WAN technology
for the packet switched wide area networks. ATM
which has fixed length cells and combines
transmission, switching and multiplexing functions had
appeared to be a promising solution not only for core
networks, but also for the access networks. The
characteristics of being asynchronous as opposed to the
synchronous transfer mode (STM) of TDM was
considered ideal for burst traffic volumes as the
Internet traffic. ATM was not accepted by the LAN
environment where Ethernet is a cheap, widely
available alternative and thousands of applications can
0-7695-2649-7/06/$20.00 (c) IEEE
Ali Yavuz ÇAKIR 4
evirgen@sakarya.edu.tr aliyavuz.cakir@turktelekom.com.tr
run on. ATM cards which could be installed only on
servers were costly compared to the Ethernet. For this
reason neither was ATM used on the PC nor did the
applications of it reached the end user. It only became
the part of research projects. IP and ATM working
together led the widely used IP applications to be
available on the ATM dominated WAN networks.
Communication networks are divided into two
categories according to their geographical structures:
Local Area Networks (LAN) and Wide Area Networks
(WAN). IP became dominant in LAN’s where the end
users reside and all applications are supported. SDH
became the popular technology in carrying backbone
traffic (e.g. voice) and ATM became the popular
technology in carrying data traffic in the WAN side. In
many circumstances ATM was running on SDH if the
capacity requirement exceeds the minimum traffic rate
of STM-1 (155 Mbps). As a result of carrying ATM
over SDH, SDH took the possession of ATM traffic.
SDH transmission networks are used by the most of
the Telecommunication Operators to carry data and
voice traffics. TDM based SDH technology has many
advantages as high transport rates, automatic protection
mechanisms, the add/drop capabilities and easy path
provisioning. The integration of multi layered
networks in a short time reformatted the IP over ATM
over SDH connections. In other words, most of the
WAN traffic including IP is transformed into ATM
cells and carried over SDH paths. In order to carry data
with reasonable costs, IP traffic had to be multiplexed
with the ATM traffic or other TDM based traffics. The
rapid growing demand for the Internet bandwidth
brought many market opportunities. Especially in the
WAN environments, Gigabits per seconds were
reached and as a result ATM appeared to be an excess
layer between IP and SDH [1].
As result of exponentially growing data traffic, the data
traffic exceeded the voice traffic. But to carry this
exponentially growing traffic, SDH (Synchronous Data
Hierarchy) is used which is based on TDM (Time
Division Multiplexing) technology. SDH transport
structure which supports the requirements of voice and
leased lines becomes an ineffective and costly solution
for the burst traffics because of the non-statistical
multiplexing structure. With the exponentially growing
traffic, this architecture has the scalability and
manageability problems. The necessity to do
enhancements of one layer with the other layers in a
multilayer environment, results the operators to invest
continually. The intention of the industry is through the
multilayered structure to the cost effective and
simplified structure (IP/WDM) keeping the traffic
management and quality of service layers [2].
DWDM wavelength multiplexing technology is the
newest technology which minimizes the costs. DWDM
generates multiple “virtual fibers” in the current fiber
cable infrastructures and makes the capacity in the
level of terabits per second. As packet switching in
these data rates is not possible, OXC’s (Optical
Crossconnects) are used to switch the wavelengths.
The capabilities of the routers and the OXC’s make it
possible to have high data rates by doing the
multiplexing of the data rates in the optical layer, so
SDH and ATM layers which traditionally did these
become needless [3]. As a result, integration of IP with
the simplified and cost effective transport layer makes
it possible to carry very high data rates. The important
point to take into account here is; in order to remove
the SDH and ATM layers, the functionality of these
layers should be handled by the IP and DWDM layers.
2. Current Telecommunications Network
Current Data networks are in the four layered structure.
These layers are IP, ATM, SDH and WDM (figure 1).
IP- Carrying services and applications, ATM
(Asynchronous Transfer Mode)- Traffic engineering
and Quality of service, SONET/SDH – Transport and
protection, DWDM (Dense Wavelength Division
Multiplexing)- Supplying the capacity [4].
Figure 1. Current telecom network’s structure
Internet networks were set up on the basis of carrying
Internet Protocol (IP) over SDH and ATM based
networks. While IP packets are carried over ATM and
SDH infrastructure, their load are about %25 weightier
0-7695-2649-7/06/$20.00 (c) IEEE
owing to protocol headers used. In this scenario, IP
packets firstly are capsulated according to a ATM
AAL5 frame by using LLC/SNAP capsules. Then
AAL5 protocol data unit (PDU) is divided into ATM
cells having a 48 byte data payload. After that, ATM
cells are transferred to SDH frame in order to be
conveyed at optical layer.
3. Elimination of Intermediate Layers in
Backbone
By the explosion in the IP traffic within the last
years; to overcome this growing IP traffic, it is needed
to build a new network structure. IP backbone
connections reached to 10 Gbps of (OC-192/STM-64)
data rate that is the highest rate in SONET/SDH.
Beside this, efficient less transmission of ATM with
approximately %25 overhead cause to interrogation of
existing structure. Current multi-layer protocol stack
has some disadvantage. These are;
• In IP over ATM over SONET over WDM
architecture, only 76% of bandwidth can be used
because of the protocol overhead
• Layers often do not work in concert. Every layer
now runs at its own speed. As low speed devices
cannot fill the wavelength the whole bandwidth can
not be used.
• In case of a failure each layer wants to restore the
fault itself. The detection in optical layer is rapid.
• Transmission speeds of optic devices exceed the
electronic devices.
It is not approved to use multiple layer network
structure any more since the dominant traffic is getting
IP. There is no need to have an ATM layer between IP
packet layer and WDM circuit [5]. Aim is to minimize
the transmission overhead to maximize transport
bandwidth. To maximize profit it is needed to
minimize layered network structure, network design,
engineering and operational costs (OPEX) [6]. Figure 2
shows various layers that are used IP forwarding.
Figure 2. Some layers that using transmitting to IP
 IP Router MPLS ATM Switch
3.1. IP Over WDM: Integration of IP and
IP Routing IP Routing ATM

Control
WDM Protocols Protocols Control
Layer
Rapid growth in data traffic and the predominance
of Internet Protocol (IP) in data communication have

led researchers investigate the IP over WDM
integration. In such architecture, network nodes
employ WDMs and IP routers. Today’s IP over ATM
over SONET/SDH over optical approach reduces
efficiency as well as the effective bandwidth provided
by WDM technology. The trend is to integrate the IP
and WDM layers by eliminating one or two layers of
protocol stack [7]. In this architecture, both the SDH
and ATM layers are removed and using the IP and
WDM layers, a two layered network is built. Transport
efficiency is optimized as ATM layer is removed. As
SDH equipment is not used in any way, the first
investment rate is reduced. A simple IP over WDM
network designed for point to point connection can be
seen in Figure 3.
Figure 3. A Connection of IP and WDM
IP/WDM is the most effective and active solution
among the other possibilities. It also requires a
simplified frame format for error processing. Two
alternative frame formats are available that can be
supported on IP. The first method is connecting IP
diretly to the WDM using the PPP/HDLC
encapsulation. The second method is IP-WDM
integration using the GE frames. IP over WDM is
named to send IP traffic over the WDM optic networks
in order to ensure the universal IP connectivity and the
bandwidth of the WDM networks. The integration of
IP and WDM; means assigning WDM optic network
resources in order to carry the IP traffic fast and
efficiently in the IP layer.
Forwarding
Longest- Label Label
match Swapping Swapping
Lookup
Figure 4. Basic idea behind MPLS
MPLS is the expansion of the existent IP
architecture. MPLS allows being supported new
properties and applications by new capabilities to
added IP architecture. New applications contain traffic
engineering, IP VPN (virtual private network),
integration with IP routing and layer 2 or optical
switching.
MPLS is designed for increasing the speed of
internet, scalability and required service capabilities. In
traditional IP messaging, packets have to be forwarded
according to their destination addresses field, at each
interface. MPLS implements that process by a new
technique, called “label-switching method”. Packets
are sent with an additional, fixed length label. Routing
process is separated from forwarding process and
different routing services may be applied without any
changes along forwarding path [8, 9].
4.1. MPLS Architecture and Basic
Components
Basic components used in MPLS architecture are
MPLS label; Label Exchange, Label Switching Path
(LSP), Label Switching Router (LSR) and Forwarding
Equivalence Classes (FEC) are explained in this
subdivision. A Sample MPLS topology is shown in
figure 5 [6].

4. Multi Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)

The origin of the MPLS based on cell switching
routing of Toshiba, IP switching of Epsilon, Aggregate
Route-based IP Switching of IBM and label switching
of Cisco. MPLS that refers label switching technology
plans on best features of ATM (rapid, easy
transmission) to combine with best features of IP Figure 5. Traditional MPLS topology
(availability, scalability, flexibility) is admitted in 1997
by IETF. The formation of MPLS is shown in figure 4.

0-7695-2649-7/06/$20.00 (c) IEEE

MPLS Label: Label which is located on the header of
forwarded packet and carries information about packet
belongs to which Forwarding Equivalence Classes is a
short and fixed-length value. Label has similarities
with link identifier like a VPI/VCI (Virtual Path
Identifier/Virtual Circuit Identifier) used in ATM or
used in Frame Relay technology a DLCI (Data Link
Connection Identifier). MPLS label format is seen in
figure 6. MPLS header is composed of 32 bits. 20 bits
of 32 bits are used for label, 3 bits for Class of Service
(CoS), 8 bits for TTL value and 1 bit for stack which
determines the encapsulated packet is in a last stack or
not.
Figure 6. General MPLS label format
Forwarding Equivalence Classes (FEC): During the
transmission level, Forwarding Equivalence Class is
used for packet groups which are processed in the same
manner. All packets grouped in this style are routed to
the destination point in the same way. This shows
envisioned traffic having same destiny.
Label Switch Router (LSR): LSR is a high speed
switching and routing device which is used for Label
Switched Paths (LSP) setup in MPLS networks. LSPs
mentioned above use datalink layer transfer. Routers in
MPLS Protocol Architecture are classified as
according to their location e.g. Label Edge Routers and
Label Switching Routers.
Label Switched Path (LSP): Paths which are set up
for providing FEC based packets transmission before
the beginning of data transfer are named as Label
Switched Paths.
Label Distribution Protocol (LDP): Label
Distribution Protocol is a set of LSPs, procedures and
messages. These LSPs are set up at datalink layer.
Procedures are used for carrying new information other
LSRs with the use of network layer routing
information. LDP sets synchronous sessions between
label switches and required label changes with using
transmission functions. LDP is the most important part
of the control component [9].
0-7695-2649-7/06/$20.00 (c) IEEE
5. Multi Protocol Lambda Switching
(MPLambdaS)
MPLmS is the equivalent term of MPLS in optical
area. In 1999, MPLambdaS was designed to adopt
MPLS traffic engineering as the control plane for
optical cross-connects (OXCs) [10]. MPLmS brings
the advances in MPLS Traffic Engineering control
plane technology and applies it to the optical layer
through the use of optical Cross connects (OXCs) [3].
MPLambdaS is an IP centric control plan protocol
(extended from MPLS) designed for wavelength-
switching in WDM network. Control Plane has fixed
topology and it is strictly separated from data channels.
IP routing protocols (with extension) are used to
distribute the WDM-link state information [11]
There are some similarities and differences between
MPLS and MPLmS. These are [12];
• OSPF, CSPF and IS-IS for routing and LDP,
CR-LDP, RSVP, and E-RSVP are applied by
both MPLS and MPLmS in setting up or
disconnecting label or lambda switched path
(LmSP).
• MPLmS uses wavelength (lambda) as labels
while MPLS uses labels instead of headers.
Other features as LSRs are mapped as OXCs,
and LSPs in MPLS are LmSP.
• Data transfer is simplified in both
technologies by integrating the layers.
• Optical layers used by MPLmS are a circuit
switching network but MPLS is a packet
switching network.
• In lambda switching Networks as MPLmS,
the blocking problem occurs less.
• As MPLmS directly controls the physical
layer, it is more effective than MPLS in
providing line restoration in times of failure.
5.1. MPLmS Architectures and Network
Element
An MPLmS network consists of WRs and is
surrounded by LSRs. A typical MPLmS network is
shown in figure 7 [6]. These LSRs at the edge are also
called Edge-LSRs and have two functions. First, traffic
flows of the service layer network are aggregated to
high bandwidth traffic streams, suitable for efficient
use of the limited number of available lightpaths.
Second, Edge LSRs request unidirectional lightpaths
(also called LSPs) to be set up by WR through the
OTN. WR with MPLmS control planes are referred to
as OXC-LSRs analogous to ATM and Frame Relay
(FR) switches, called ATM-LSRs and FR-LSRs.
Figure 7. An MPLmS working backbone
MPLS architecture, the term label denotes a fixed
length value carried in the cell/packet header. LSRs
process the packet header to distinguish between the
different LSPs carried over link. In the MPLmS
architecture, the term label denotes a certain
wavelength on a fiber span or, if the WRs are TDM
capable, a certain TDM channel of a wavelength. Thus,
WRs process incoming traffic at channel/port level and
distinguish between different LSPs, according to their
incoming port/channel identifier [6].
6. Generalized Multi Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS)
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) is also known as a Multiprotocol Lambda
Switching (MPLmS) [4]. The Common Control and
Management Plane (CCMP) working group of Internet
Engineering Task Force ( IETF) is currently working
on extending MPLS protocols to support multiple
network layers and new TDM and optical services.
This concept, which was originally referred to as
Multiprotocol Lambda Switching (MPLmS) is now
referred to as Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
architecture and concepts [13]. MPLmS was originally
performing wavelength switching with IP and WDM
layers’ integration. Afterwards, IETF expanded to
MPLmS that limited with lambda, to multiple layers
through the generalized MPLS. Thanks to this, a
structure was constituted to support more than one
switching type like packet switching, Time Division
Multiplexer (TDM) switching, lambda switching and
fiber switching [2, 7,14].
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) is a multi-platform control plane technology
to support not only devices that perform packet-
0-7695-2649-7/06/$20.00 (c) IEEE
switching, but also devices that perform switching
wavelength domains. GMPLS extends the MPLmS
control plane to include domains such as
SONET/SDH, ATM and Gigabit Ethernet for control
with the optical layer [10, 15]. While MPLS seemed to
combine parts of the IP layer to the Network Access
Layer, MPLmS seems to bring down the upper layer
functions to the physical layer. The clarification to
MPLmS, named GMPLS, seeks to combine the IP and
optical layers together, by allowing one control plane
to control both protocols. Figure 8 describes the
aggregation of layers as proposed by MPLS, MPLmS
and GMPLS [12].
Figure 8. MPLS, MPLmS and GMPLS with TCP/IP
layers shown
GMPLS can be summarized as [7];
ƒ It is composed traffic engineering and optical
extensions to the routing and signalling protocols of
MPLS.
ƒ Integrating the next generation data and optical
networks, it is an optical networking standard.
ƒ For interoperable and scalable networks, it acts as a
bridge between IP and optical layers.
ƒ It brings the intelligence to the optical Networks
and this enables the operators do better restoration
and utilize the bandwidth better.
ƒ It is designed to allow edge networking devices
such as routers and switches to request bandwidth
they need from the optical layer.
ƒ It offers the support for optical and hierarchical
LSPs (or lightpaths)
ƒ It can handle handle multiple traffic types
simultaneously as it is designed to do. It creates a
control plane to support multiple switching layers.
6.1. GMPLS Interfaces
GMPLS made some modifications on MPLS as
separation of signaling and data channel and support
more types of control interface. GMPLS extends the
MPLS to support more interfaces other than packet
switch. The GMPLS architecture extends MPLS to
include five different types of interfaces used on label
switch routers: (Figure 9) [5,13].
Figure 9. Supported interfaces by GMPLS in control
plane
Packet-switch capable (PSC) interfaces: Can read
the packet headers and forward the data based on these.
Routers’ and L3 Ethernet switches have these
interfaces.
Layer 2-switch capable (L2SC) interfaces: Can read
the L2 cell or frame headers and forward data
according to these. ATM, Frame Relay and L3
Ethernet switches have these interfaces.
Time-division multiplexing (TDM) interfaces: Can
read the time slots and forward data according to these
repeatedly. Digital cross-connects (DACSs), SONET
add/drop multiplexers (ADMs) and SONET cross-
connects have these interfaces. These interfaces are
called “TDM capable”.
Lambda-switch capable (LSC) interface: These have
the capability to forward data based on the lambda
(wavelength) the data was received on. Optical cross-
connects (OXCs) that switch traffic on the wavelength
level use these interfaces.
Fiber-switch capable (FSC) interfaces: Forwards
data based on the position of the data in real-world
physical spaces. OXCs that switch traffic on the fiber
or multiple-fiber level have these interfaces [13].
6. CONCLUSION
As a result of ‘the rapid increase in Internet user
numbers’, ‘increasing the number of user that are
sending and receiving video’, ‘picture or large files’,
‘due to a lot of companies to use internet for intra and
inter corporation information exchange’, ‘become very
popular of mobile internet access’ and ‘the expansion
of IP telephone usage’, data traffic excess voice traffic.
Internet traffic is growing about 10% per month. To
support this increasing demand with existing
infrastructure seems to be very difficult. This growing
bandwidth issue can be solved by integrating IP and
WDM systems which support terabit level bandwidth
0-7695-2649-7/06/$20.00 (c) IEEE
over a pair of fibre. Telecom operators will establish
Optical Cross Connect (OXC) WDM equipments that
are switching in optical layer in their backbone. The
interoperability of IP and WDM layers which will
remain after the simplification of existing multiple
layers enable GMPLS signaling and routing protocols
which provide TDM wavelength switching as well as
packet switching in control plane.
7. REFERENCES
[1] SERRAT, J., GALIS A., “ Deploying and Managing IP
over WDM Networks”, Artech House, Boston, 2003
[2] ARKUT, R. C., ARKUT, I. C., “Etiket Anahtarlama
Teknolojisinde Evrimsel Geliúmeler”, i-net.tr 2001
[3] GHANI, N., et al., “ On Ip Over WDM Integration”,
IEEE Comms. Mag., Marc 2000
[4] BANERJEE, A., AWDUCHE, D., KOMPELLA,
K., “Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching: An
overwiew of Signaling Enhancements and Recovery
Techniques”, IEEE Com. Mag., July 2001, pp 144-150
[5] LIU, K., “IP over WDM”, John Wiley & Sons, New
Jersey, june 2002
[6] TAMSU, P., SCHMUTZER, C., “Next Genaration
Optical Networks”, Prentice Hall, New Jersey 2002
[7] ILYAS, M., MOUFTAH, H.T., “Optical Communication
Networks”, CRC Pres, USA, 2003
[8] VISWANATHAN, A., FELDMAN, N., WANG, Z., and
CALLON R., “Evolution of Multi-Protocol Label
Switching”, IEEE Communications Magazine, V. 36 Issue:
5, pp.164-173, May 1998.
[9] ROSEN, E., VISWANATHAN, A., and CALLON, R.,
“Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture”, RFC 3031,
January 2001.
[10] YOO, S.B.J, “ Optical Label Switching, MPLS, MPLmS
and GMPLS”, Optical Network Magazine, May/June 2003,
pp 17-31
[11] AWDUCHE, D., ‘Multi-Protocol Lambda Switching:
Combining MPLS Traffic Engineering Control With Optical
Cross-Connects,’ Internet Draft, Work in progress,
draftawduche-mpls-te-optical-03.txt, April 2001.
[12] CHO, G.Y., CHUNG J.M., “Analysis of MPLS vs.
MPLambdaS Next Generation Networking Tecnologies”
IEEE 2001, pp 518-522
[13] HALABI, S., “Metro Ethernet”, Cisco Press,
Indianapolis, September 2003
[14] CHRISTIANSEN, H., WESSING H., “ Modelling
GMPLS and Optical MPLS”, IEEE 2003, pp 288-294
[15] KHAN, H.K, SOO, H.M., REYES, J.S., CHO, G.Y.,
CHUNG, J.M.,“Analysis of GMPLS Architectures,
Topologies and and Algorithms”, IEEE 2002, pp 284-287