Data link connection identifier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A data link connection identifier (DLCI) is a Frame Relay 10 bit wide link-local
virtual circuit identifier used to assign frames to a specific PVC or SVC. Fram
e Relay networks use DLCIs to statistically multiplex frames. DLCIs are preloade
d into each switch and act as road signs to the traveling frames.[1]
The standard allows the existence of 1024 DLCIs. DLCI 0 reserved for ANSI/q993a
LMI standard - only numbers 16 to 976 are usable for end-user equipment. DLCI 10
23 is reserved for Cisco LMI - however, the numbers usable are from 16 to 1007.
[2]
In summary, only numbers from 16 to 1007 are available for end users' equipment
(If using Cisco LMI). The rest are reserved for various management purposes.[3]
Take note that DLCI are Layer 2 Addresses that are locally significant. No two d
evices have the same DLCI mapped to
interface in one frame relay cloud
Introduction
MPLS is a scalable, protocol-independent transport. In an MPLS network, data pac
kets are assigned labels. Packet-forwarding decisions are made solely on the con
tents of this label, without the need to examine the packet itself. This allows
one to create end-to-end circuits across any type of transport medium, using any
protocol. The primary benefit is to eliminate dependence on a particular OSI mo
del data link layer technology, such as Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM), Frame
Relay, Synchronous Optical Networking (SONET) or Ethernet, and eliminate the nee
d for multiple layer-2 networks to satisfy different types of traffic. MPLS belo
ngs to the family of packet-switched networks.
MPLS operates at a layer that is generally considered to lie between traditional
definitions of layer 2 (data link layer) and layer 3 (network layer), and thus
is often referred to as a "layer 2.5" protocol. It was designed to provide a uni
fied data-carrying service for both circuit-based clients and packet-switching c
lients which provide a datagram service model. It can be used to carry many diff
erent kinds of traffic, including IP packets, as well as native ATM, SONET, and
Ethernet frames.
A number of different technologies were previously deployed with essentially ide
ntical goals, such as Frame Relay and ATM. Frame Relay and ATM use it to move fr
ames or cells throughout a network. The header of the ATM cell and the Frame Rel
ay frame refer to the virtual circuit that the cell or frame resides on. The sim
ilarity between Frame Relay and ATM is that at each hop throughout the network,
the label value in the header is changed. This is different from the forwarding of
IP packets.[1] MPLS technologies have evolved with the strengths and weaknesses
of ATM in mind. Many network engineers agree that ATM should be replaced with a
protocol that requires less overhead, while providing connection-oriented servi
ces for variable-length frames. MPLS is currently replacing some of these techno
logies in the marketplace. It is highly possible that MPLS will completely repla
ce these technologies in the future, thus aligning these technologies with curre
nt and future technology needs.[2]
In particular, MPLS dispenses with the cell-switching and signaling-protocol bag
gage of ATM. MPLS recognizes that small ATM cells are not needed in the core of
modern networks, since modern optical networks are so fast (as of 2008, at 40 Gb
it/s and beyond) that even full-length 1500 byte packets do not incur significan
t real-time queuing delays (the need to reduce such delays e.g., to support voic

e traffic

was the motivation for the cell nature of ATM).

At the same time, MPLS attempts to preserve the traffic engineering and out-of-b
and control that made Frame Relay and ATM attractive for deploying large-scale n
etworks.
While the traffic management benefits of migrating to MPLS are quite valuable (b
etter reliability, increased performance), there is a significant loss of visibi
lity and access into the MPLS cloud for IT departments.[3]
History
1994:
1996:
1997:
1999:
2000:
2001:
2002:
2004:
2006:
2007:
2009:
2011:

Toshiba presents Cell Switch Router (CSR) ideas to IETF BOF

Ipsilon, Cisco and IBM announce label switching plans
IETF MPLS Working Group formed
First MPLS VPN (L3VPN) and TE deployments
MPLS Traffic Engineering
First MPLS RFCs released
AToM (L2VPN)
GMPLS; Large Scale L3VPN
Large Scale TE
Large Scale L2VPN
Label Switching Multicast
MPLS Transport Profile

In 1996 a group from Ipsilon Networks proposed a "flow management protocol".[4]

Their "IP Switching" technology, which was defined only to work over ATM, did no
t achieve market dominance. Cisco Systems introduced a related proposal, not res
tricted to ATM transmission, called "Tag Switching".[5] It was a Cisco proprieta
ry proposal, and was renamed "Label Switching". It was handed over to the Intern
et Engineering Task Force (IETF) for open standardization. The IETF work involve
d proposals from other vendors, and development of a consensus protocol that com
bined features from several vendors' work.[when?]
One original motivation was to allow the creation of simple high-speed switches,
since for a significant length of time it was impossible to forward IP packets
entirely in hardware. However, advances in VLSI have made such devices possible.
Therefore the advantages of MPLS primarily revolve around the ability to suppor
t multiple service models and perform traffic management. MPLS also offers a rob
ust recovery framework[6] that goes beyond the simple protection rings of synchr
onous optical networking (SONET/SDH).