Light Reading
Once called "the new Ethernet," Carrier Ethernet 2.0 still hasn't been widely adopted.

Is 2014 the Year of Carrier Ethernet 2.0?

Dan O'Shea
1/3/2014
100%
0%

Will 2014 be the year that the Metro Ethernet Forum's Carrier Ethernet 2.0 becomes widely adopted among service providers? For something once touted as "the new Ethernet," it's been a bust.

It has been almost two years since the MEF, along with Ethernet Godfather Bob Metcalfe, announced CE 2.0. Yet, 23 months later, the MEF's services registry lists only 14 service providers globally as offering CE 2.0-certified services (See MEF Sticks a '2.0' on Carrier Ethernet.)

There might be more who are not yet listed, still in the process of being certified, or even still in the process for network deployment. In fact, while many of us were on holiday late last month, Hutchison Global Communications Ltd. (HGC) and vendor partner Cisco Systems Inc. (Nasdaq: CSCO) announced plans to launch the first CE 2.0-compliant network in Hong Kong, which is also believed to be the first CE 2.0 network in the broader region of Asia outside of Indonesia and the Philippines.

The relatively low number of CE 2.0-certified service providers pales in comparison to at least 73 that are CE 1.0-certified, according to the MEF website. Meanwhile, 29 vendors are listed as having their equipment CE 2.0-certified, compared to 81 for CE 1.0. It doesn't seem like vendors have felt rushed to adopt CE 2.0 either, perhaps because a large number of their service-provider customers just haven't demanded it.

CE 2.0 expanded the number of Ethernet service definitions to eight -- two each under the E-Line, E-LAN, E-Tree, and E-Access service categories -- while adding further support for interconnection and management, as well as performance objectives for multiple classes of service (MultiCoS). These are all aspects which would seem valuable as providers in an increasingly competitive sector look to differentiate their services, and also as they look to expand their reach into new markets via interconnection agreements.

But, with low adoption, the most obvious assumptions to make are that MultiCoS guarantees just haven't surfaced yet as market necessities, and that providers don’t yet feel the need for standardized interconnection as they branch out. That reality seems to buttress some providers' early skepticism about MultiCoS. (See Carriers Not Cheering Complex Class of Service.)

It looks like a Heavy Reading Insider report from mid-2012 called it correctly when it stated, according to a survey of service provider officials, that many didn't see their companies likely to adopt CE 2.0 any time before 2014. Well, it's 2014, and if CE 2.0 is to be of value at the services level, it's time to prove it (See Operators Like CE 2.0 – So Far.)

— Dan O'Shea, Managing Editor, Light Reading

(18)  | 
Comment  | 
Print  | 
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
t.bogataj
50%
50%
t.bogataj,
User Rank: Light Sabre
1/7/2014 | 3:00:56 AM
Re: MEF
Dan, this one is simple. Just recall the lifespan of the ATM forum; they renamed to MEF (well, officially they formed it) when they realised that ATM was loosing against Ethernet.

T.
sam masud
50%
50%
sam masud,
User Rank: Light Sabre
1/6/2014 | 10:19:49 AM
Re: MEF
The comment about "Getting back" to CE was most apropos. Also, I've wondered for a long time why the organization goes by the MEF moniker--you'd think they would call themselves something like Carrier Ethernet Forum or Ethernet Services Forum....Just a thought...

But on second thought, I guess they put "Metro" in there because that is really what CE is all about, meaning providing Ethernet connectivity to customers, from the first mile and into the metro.
Cellco
50%
50%
Cellco,
User Rank: Moderator
1/6/2014 | 8:49:04 AM
Re: MEF
Dan, you have an excellent idea to change the name to more inclusive service offerings.  The Cellular industry adopted use of MEF-22 and MEF-8 as an example.  There are many solutions available from the work at MEF across multiple service provider lineage architectures. 
Cellco
50%
50%
Cellco,
User Rank: Moderator
1/6/2014 | 8:46:39 AM
Re: Are the skeptics cheering?
Correct on OSMINE, I rejected the PO and worked with others solicited by BELLCORE/Telcordia to reject OSMINE process for PON.  I was responsible for the EMS development on our end. 

Again correct on Asia, just like Verizon and AFC were not the only PON activity, ITU is not the only place standards are developed. 

Do not be so sensitive.  I am not wrong just because I worked with companies other than AFC and Verizon.  There are many paths to go by, just like the delay of PON was not only due to UNE-L regulatory status, it took Triennial review, several NPRMs and a couple of court cases in parallel to create the delay. 

Today, we have no less than five state open proceedings, three active court cases and 7 open FCC actions in parallel to further prevent resale of incumbent plant.
brookseven
50%
50%
brookseven,
User Rank: Light Sabre
1/6/2014 | 1:24:28 AM
Re: Are the skeptics cheering?
Cellco,

You are wrong about the reason for the elimination of OSMINE, since it technically was not eliminated.  TIRKS was still used and that is part of the OSMINE process.  I don't believe any PON provisioning tools were ever created under OSMINE.  So, Verizon created its own instead of having the former Telcordia do it.  Of course, AFC already complied with OSMINE so TIRKS was no problem.  

The Asian installations were EPON and therefore did not require any ITU specifications as they were IEEE compliant.

seven

 
DOShea
50%
50%
DOShea,
User Rank: Blogger
1/5/2014 | 9:09:31 PM
MEF
Getting back to Carrier Ethernet, when is the Metro Ethernet Forum going to get around to changing its name?
Cellco
50%
50%
Cellco,
User Rank: Moderator
1/5/2014 | 3:01:34 PM
Re: Are the skeptics cheering?
I can stand by my account and I do not think yours is much different than mine.  AFC did a great job with it's penetration into Rural telcos later on, where competition was underway.  As I said, I was able to travel to the installations through 2002 and lived adjacent to a 2001 installation (your right, not AFC).   They were not trials.

The installations in Asia prior to 2003 were not technically PON because the chipsets on-board for the 2000, 2001 and most of the 2002 were *manufactured before 983.x ratification.  The dba, sur, one other annex did not start until 2002.   I do not know when ITU ratified 984.x but we did not start our contributions until early 2001. 

We agree OSMINE was not used and I maintain not relavent because nobody wanted to pay and wait for the process at that time, certainly no need to as the regulatory environment for those obligated to resale would not proceed. 
brookseven
50%
50%
brookseven,
User Rank: Light Sabre
1/5/2014 | 12:21:08 PM
Re: Are the skeptics cheering?
Cellco,

Wow, Calix got their PON solution from their purchase of OSI.  AFC where I ran a large number of things were working on a proof of concept in 02.  I know for a fact that the first time any customer saw the AFC product was at Supercomm 03 where there was a demo in the booth.

In Asia, the deployment was EPON in Japan and Korea and by none of those vendors you named.  

As to OSMINE, Verizon did its own OSS environment in Tampa other than TIRKS.

So, your facts are completely wrong on the topic.  The first large scale FTTH deployments were Korea, Japan and FiOS.  

I am completely opinionless on CE 2.0.  But if you are using your statements about PON as credibility then you have a problem.

If you want some better evidence in timeline, please read http://wp.me/p3XVhG-3c.  This blog is written by the former CTO of AFC.

seven
Cellco
50%
50%
Cellco,
User Rank: Moderator
1/5/2014 | 11:21:11 AM
Re: Are the skeptics cheering?
Seven,  Yes, I got to work on PON as well, (infact Light Reading was quite a flaming board back when I started reading and afraid to post because our IT dept managed R&D eng activity). I was and suspect you were in ITU writing, I was working on NEC chipset for a couple pre-983.x versions and then bringing it back into final, then the Annexes; then into 984.x Annexes, then working to get Expo, Anritsu, Agilent and Tektronix good information on our test suites for OLT and ONUs then working on Corning, Rational, National Instruments to create the test suites, and carriers to discern the lack of interest in 983.x and more of an interest in 984. 

During late 2001 and through 2002, I was able to go out to several telcos in USA but also Asia Pacific to see where Tut, TerraWave, Calix, AllOptix, AFC were having success and no-longer trial sites.  I was able to mediate the value of going through OSMINE a new process BELLCORE was trying to get more outside parties to buy into.  So yes in 2002-2004 there were just a few telcos, not tied to resale obligations (or not so concerned).

The bulk buyers that needed to go through checklist of CGL, QuESTForum and get the nomenclature into Common Language (but manage avoiding OSMINE) were able to use the period up-until release from resale obligations to get all that work done.  It is a good thing they did because the 983.x bit rate was nowhere near performing to what could be achieved in 984.x.

That brings us back to the point of CE 2.0.  There is no rush what-so-ever to get the product into Common Language, complete QuEST Forum etc...  The thought of having to expense ICA capable OSS support in addtion to Wholesale or VNO tools is too precious.  Give them a couple more years to work ICA into Wholesale/VNO rules and tools, then you will see the move from the interim steps into robust CE 2.0.
brookseven
50%
50%
brookseven,
User Rank: Light Sabre
1/4/2014 | 12:32:49 PM
Re: Are the skeptics cheering?
Cellco,

Given that I worked on the PON product, I can tell you that the first AFC PON offering was a proof of concept first shown at the Supercomm 03 show.  So, no there was little to no PON deployments in 02 in the US.  Folks like OSI were the leaders and were tiny companies.

As to the regulatory topic, remember one of the big reasons for PON deployment was that unbundling is not required for FTTP networks (nor for FTTC if limited to 500' or less of copper).

So, your comment that regulatory slowed down PON is wrong and the fiber unbundling change (aka UNE-L) was before 04.

seven

 
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
More Blogs from DOS Attack
The 25G Gigabit Ethernet Consortium looks like a case of companies moving to establish a default standard where the standards process has failed so far.
Light Reading's Big Telecom Event featured plenty of packet-optical activity and discussion.
Check out the second batch of Leading Lights contenders in this category.
Presenting the first six of 12 finalists for the Leading Lights Best Telecom Product award.
Huawei names Ming He to lead its US operations, such as they are...
Flash Poll
LRTV Documentaries
Sprint's Network Evolution

7|24|14   |   14:59   |   (0) comments


Sprint's Jay Bluhm gives a keynote speech at the Big Telecom Event (BTE) about Sprint's network and services evolution strategy, including Spark.
LRTV Documentaries
BTE Keynote: The Software-Defined Operator

7|24|14   |   18:43   |   (1) comment


Deutsche Telekom's Axel Clauberg explains the concept of the software-defined operator to the Big Telecom Event (BTE) crowd.
Light Reedy
Numbers Are In: LR's 2014 Salary Survey

7|24|14   |   1:25   |   (6) comments


Our fourth annual Salary Survey paints a picture of who's hiring, firing, earning, and yearning for a change in the telecom industry.
LRTV Custom TV
Driving the Network Transformation

7|23|14   |   4:29   |   (0) comments


Intel's Sandra Rivera discusses network transformation and how Intel technologies, programs, and standards body efforts have helped the industry migration to SDN and NFV.
LRTV Custom TV
Distributed NFV-Based Business Services by RAD

7|18|14   |   5:38   |   (0) comments


With the ETSI-approved Distributed NFV PoC running in the background, RAD's CEO, Dror Bin, talks about why D-NFV makes compelling sense for service providers, and about the dollars and cents RAD is putting behind D-NFV.
LRTV Custom TV
MRV – Accelerating Packet Optical Convergence

7|15|14   |   6:06   |   (0) comments


Giving you network insight to make your network smarter.
LRTV Custom TV
NFV-Enabled Ethernet for Generating New Revenues

7|15|14   |   5:49   |   (0) comments


Cyan's Planet Orchestrate allows service providers and their end-customers to activate software-based capabilities such as firewalls and encryption on top of existing Ethernet services in just minutes.
LRTV Custom TV
Symkloud NVF-Ready Video Transcoding, Big Data

7|9|14   |   3:41   |   (0) comments


Kontron and ISV partner Vantrix demonstrate high-performance video transcoding and data analytic solutions on same 2U standard platform that is ready for SDN and NFV deployments made by mobile, cable and cloud operators.
LRTV Huawei Video Resource Center
The Evolving Role of Hybrid Video for Competitive Success

7|4|14   |   4:09   |   (0) comments


At Huawei's Global Analysts Summit in Shenzhen, China, Steven C. Hawley from TV Strategies speaks to us about the evolving role of hybrid video for competitive success.
LRTV Huawei Video Resource Center
How CSPs Leverage Big Data in the Digital Economy

7|4|14   |   4:48   |   (2) comments


Justin van der Lande from Analysys Mason shares with us his views on how telecom operators can leverage customer asset monetization with big data. His discusses the current status of big data applications and the challenges and opportunities for telecom operators in the digital economy era.
LRTV Huawei Video Resource Center
Accelerator for Digital Business – Future Oriented BSS

7|4|14   |   3:08   |   (0) comments


Mobile and internet are becoming intertwined; IT and CT are integrating; and leading CSPs have begun to transform to information service and entertainment providers. How should the BSS system evolve to enable this transformation? Karl Whitelock, an analyst at Frost & Sullivan, shares his views.
LRTV Huawei Video Resource Center
Orange Tunisia Discusses Multi-Band Antenna With EasyRET Solution

7|4|14   |   2:45   |   (0) comments


As new site acquisition becomes more difficult, Orange Tunisia has requested multi-band antenna to support UMTS and LTE innovation. Some things considered include reducing the cost of antenna maintenance and having high reliability antenna and EasyRET solution.
Upcoming Live Events!!
September 16, 2014, Santa Clara, CA
September 16, 2014, Santa Clara, CA
October 29, 2014, New York City
November 11, 2014, Atlanta, GA
December 9-10, 2014, Reykjavik, Iceland
June 9-10, 2015, Chicago, IL
Infographics
Packet Design asks network professionals how they handle the cloud, SDN, and network management.
Hot Topics
The Municipal Menace?
Jason Meyers, Senior Editor, Utility Communications/IoT, 7/22/2014
Cisco Puts a Fog Over IoT
Sarah Reedy, Senior Editor, 7/23/2014
Apple Earnings: Strong iPhone Sales, iPad Sales Slump, $7.8B Profit
Mitch Wagner, West Coast Bureau Chief, Light Reading, 7/22/2014
GM: 10 Car Models on Road With AT&T's LTE
Dan Jones, Mobile Editor, 7/18/2014
Like Us on Facebook
Twitter Feed