Centralized vs Distributed Internet Breakout

"Should the internet traffic exit the network at a central DC or directly at the branch?"; is a well known debate among engineers specially when the cloud emerged. Here is the view of an architect for that matter.











Centralized Internet Breakout

All branch traffic is backhauled to a central data center where internet links connected and Firewalls, Proxies, IDS/IPS are placed.

Organizations choose this model for:
  • Easy security enforcement
  • Centralized policy control
  • Easier compliance & logging
  • Traditional MPLS based approach

Drawbacks:
  • Increased latency
  • WAN bandwidth consumption
  • Internet link bandwidth consumption
  • DC becomes a large failure domain

This model worked perfectly when all applications hosted in the DC, internet usage was limited to certain requirements and MPLS was dominant.

But cloud changed this landscape.

Distributed Internet Breakout (Direct Internet Access / DIA)

This is where each branch / site has its own internet, local firewalls / Secure Web Gateways and Direct SaaS access.

Why it was adapted widely:
  • Optimized SaaS performance
  • Lower latency
  • Reduced WAN link costs as fever bandwidth consumption
  • Split failure domains

Drawbacks:
  • Security Policy consistency becomes harder
  • Larger attack surface
  • More distributed devices to manage
  • Need to purchase / manage many internet circuits

Note that most of the drawbacks related to managing stuff could be countered with innovations in SD-WAN technologies.

The Real Decision Making Point

It's not about the security enforcement, managing devices or managing circuits; it's about the user experience when using cloud based applications like SaaS especially SaaS traffic like M365, Teams, Zoom, CRMs etc. It's in fact the whole point of architecture.

Modern enterprise architectures often combine distributed breakouts with central policy control via SASE / cloud security platforms and centralized path for sensitive applications.

Final Thought

Centralized breakout optimizes control.
Distributed breakout optimizes performance.

The best designs utilize both, intentionally for different application needs.

If SaaS traffic hairpins through a data center 1,000 kms away, you are paying MPLS unnecessarily and getting bad cloud experience.

Posted in | Leave a comment

MPLS vs Internet VPN vs SD-WAN - A Decision Framework

When SD-WAN first emerged and became the industry trend, many network engineers quickly declared:

“MPLS is dead.”
“SD-WAN fixes everything.”

But even after a decade, that narrative hasn’t proven true, and it never will.

The reason is simple:

SD-WAN is not a transport.
It is an orchestration layer.

MPLS, on the other hand, is a transport service.

SD-WAN does not replace MPLS by default, it can actually use MPLS as one of its underlay transports. It sits above the transports (MPLS, Internet, LTE, etc.) and intelligently steers traffic across them.

The right solution to choose starts with the business requirement and depends on what you're optimizing for not what's trending.





Before choosing the technology, ask:
  • does uptime have an SLA?
  • is application performance critical to revenue?
  • are sites in remote or unstable ISP regions?
  • is traffic mostly SaaS and cloud based?
  • is security centralized or distributed?

Architecture follows answers.

MPLS - Commitment First

Best when:
  • client needs a predictable performance
  • low latency between branches is required
  • client needs a carrier-backed SLA
  • require private circuit
  • controlled routing

Weaknesses:
  • Expensive
  • Slow to provision
  • Harder cloud breakout

Commitment is not something everyone asks for and it comes with a high price.

Internet VPN - Budget First

Best when:
  • sites are small
  • client is a SMB
  • budget is constrained
  • traffic is mostly SaaS
  • downtime tolerance is reasonable
  • fast deployment
  • simple design is admired

Weaknesses:
  • No SLA guarantees
  • ISP path unpredictability
  • Performance variability

Budget is not the only point for choosing a technology, if you are doing so you are doing procurement not architecture. 

SD-WAN - Automated Control

Best when:
  • client has many transports which needs orchestration
  • applications have different priorities
  • client needs centralized policy control
  • cloud first architecture is in place
  • dynamic steering needed
  • application aware routing
  • better bandwidth utilization
  • integrated security (some vendors)

Weaknesses:
  • Careful planning needed to achieve results
  • Operational complexity
  • Vendor lock-in
  • Added costs

SD-WAN is utilizing the MPLS and Internet VPN and perform orchestration over imperfect links automatically to achieve the results.

Instead of asking "What's better?" ask:
  • What is the cost of application unreliability?
  • What is the cost of latency to the business?
  • What is more preferred? Guaranteed performance or Intelligent adaption?
  • Need optimization for stability or flexiblity?
  • Is your team ready to operate a policy-driven WAN?

Final Thought

SD-WAN is cleary the future for most global scale enterprises; for some, a well-designed MPLS VPN or even an Internet VPN can still be entirely sufficient and can be ideal in certain scenarios, even in 2026. Honestly it depends on the trade-offs which are aligning trasnport characteristics with business impact.

Posted in | Leave a comment

Search on this Blog

All rights reserved. Copyright © 2026 by DecL3.net - Swedish Greys - a WordPress theme from Nordic Themepark. Converted by Lite Themes.