You Can Mix And Match MPLS Nodes For Huge Discounts

Adding MPLS nodes to existing networks is a great way of reducing your monthly run rate while the existing nodes are still under contract at their expensive old prices. Through certain resellers, you can even keep your current routers and the same underlying MPLS network, while renegotiating the monthly charges for all of your existing MPLS nodes.

Don't Play Bumper Cars With Your Traffic!

Some providers upsell CoS on MPLS (at different committed information rates) by threatening to discard real-time packets above the CoS CIR, but most Ethernet VLAN implementations honor your 802.1Q headers across the VLAN as-is, free of charge. By grooming an Ethernet frame into a packet and weighing it down with IP addresses, MPLS adds unnecessary latency compared with Ethernet solutions. We present multiple options for both MPLS and Ethernet that don't require 'uplift' charges for CoS CIR.

Pick A Less Expensive Solution With Long-Term Support

MPLS is being abandoned by a number of providers, but you wouldn't know it from the way that salespeople keep padding their margins. Several ILECs are dropping certain DIA/MPLS converged-port implementations because Ethernet is simpler, while deploying SD-WAN is preferable to managing premise-based routers on hard-to-change firmware. CenturyLink and XO both have certain networking products where the prices for a layer-2 Ethernet VPLS and layer-3 IP-VPN are identical. And across the board, the price per MPLS node is higher now than for an equivalent Ethernet connection. When you start looking at large circuits between 100 Mbps and 1 Gbps, certain ILECs charge 75%-300% more for MPLS versus their own Ethernet products.

MPLS is still a good technology for sites where only T1 or DSL circuits are available. But for sites served with fiber or symmetrical coax, Ethernet can generate major cost savings for your business.

Pay Only For The SLA You Need, For The Traffic You Actually Send

If MPLS is required, keep in mind that the node-to-node latency on a intra-metro network will be a fraction of the provider's maximum times as stipulated in the SLA. That means there's no compelling reason to overpay 30% for MPLS from a so-called "Network-as-a-Service" provider when you can get a comparable SLA from a provider reselling the local ILEC and running their own NOC. If MPLS is needed for voice alone, you can set up an SD-WAN that offers MOS call quality and application-driven prioritization via the closest PoP over an existing DIA circuit, saving lots of money with no impairment in call quality. And you could use the savings to pick a voice service provider that uses redundant termination, gaining better uptime at a fraction of your current OpEx.