1. MPLS Interconnect - Implications Network Engineering – January 2005

2. © 2005 Cable and Wireless plc2 C&W MPLS Network IC – Scope  Direct NNIs with other carrier MPLS networks in ‘double figures’  Similar number of indirect connections to direct ones  Mostly in EU  Significant number of additional ones in pipeline  Transparent Class of Service (ie honour customer’s CoS/TOS bits)  To date C&W have experienced no significant security or integrity problems

3. © 2005 Cable and Wireless plc3 MPLS Interconnect – BT ‘Challenges’  Digital Wrapper – Labels within Labels –C&W does not employ label stacking across NNI, hence no issue  Control Plane Challenge – control plane runs in-band allowing IP across NNI = security risk –C&W does not permit native IP across NNI (Option B RSC2547 S.10)  OAM challenge – requires protocols allowing identification of which operators network is at fault –C&W does not allow access to PE routers; provides proxy servers which give visibility of relevant configuration information  QoS Challenge – QoS not consistent across network and degenerates to lowest common denominator –Solution requires mapping of code point marking

4. © 2005 Cable and Wireless plc4 Summary  This response is not based on detailed study!  C&W MPLS interconnect experience to date has not been problematical from a security/integrity viewpoint  Agree that there are challenges to be met, but confident that there are solutions to the issues raised  C&W SMEs will participate in detailed discussions in due course (TSG?)