Light Reading

Is 2014 the Year of Carrier Ethernet 2.0?

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

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
While fiber-connected businesses are increasing in numbers, they're still isolated islands.
A new industry alliance is aiming to quickly produce a specification for 100G to be used inside data centers.
Network equipment providers (NEPs) should take a close look at what they've learned from the transition to all-IP networks as they adapt to a world that's embracing SDN and NFV.
Cisco is consolidating its controllers, but not in favor of OpenDaylight's.
As it tussles with financial drama and SDN issues, Cisco's answer to both could be a marketing and pricing revamp for enterprise products.
Flash Poll
LRTV Documentaries
Cable Eyes Big Technology Shifts

4|16|14   |   03:02   |   (4) comments


US cable engineers are facing a lot of heavy lifting in the coming years, notes Light Reading Cable/Video Practice Leader Alan Breznick.
LRTV Custom TV
Maximizing Customer Experience & Assuring Service Delivery in an IP World

4|15|14   |   4:57   |   (0) comments


Steven Shalita, VP of Marketing, NetScout Systems, Inc., discusses the challenges cable/MSO operators face in assuring the delivery of new IP-based services. Key points include the value of proactively managing performance, and using rich analytics and operational intelligence to better understand service and usage trends, make smarter business decisions and ...
LRTV Documentaries
Bye-Bye DVD: Consumers Embrace Digital Video

4|10|14   |   04:17   |   (7) comments


Veteran video analyst Colin Dixon, founder and principal analyst of nScreenMedia, says research shows 56% are using digital video already.
LRTV Documentaries
Video: TW Cable Puts Multicast Gateways to the Test

4|8|14   |   04:13   |   (1) comment


Tom Gonder, a chief architect at Time Warner Cable, explains how its trial of multicast gateways is impacting IP-based video plans.
LRTV Custom TV
Managing & Monetizing Big Data in Operator Environments

4|7|14   |     |   (1) comment


At Mobile World Congress, Gigamon's Director of Service Provider Solutions, Andy Huckridge, and Heavy Reading Analyst Sarah Wallace discuss the 'big data' issues facing carriers and operators today.
LRTV Huawei Video Resource Center
Data Center Energy – Build Your Data Center in a Modular Way

4|7|14   |   2:13   |   (0) comments


Dr. Fang Liangzhou, VP Network Energy Product Line, shared his thoughts about the challenges for data centers during CeBIT 2014.
LRTV Huawei Video Resource Center
Agile Network Solution – An Overview of Huawei's Agile Network Solution

4|7|14   |   2:31   |   (0) comments


Ajay Gupta, Director of Product Marketing, Networking Product Line, gives an overview of the Agile Network Solutions during CeBIT 2014.
LRTV Huawei Video Resource Center
Huawei’s eLTE Voice Trunking, Video and Data Applied for Railways

4|7|14   |   1:38   |   (0) comments


Gottfried Winter is the Sales Director at Funkwerk, a German specialist in GSM-r terminals and a long-time partner of Huawei. At CeBIT 2014, Winter talks to Light Reading about this partnership and the integration of enhanced voice trunking, video and data functions.
LRTV Huawei Video Resource Center
LeaseWeb Speaks Highly of Huawei's Datacenter Products

4|7|14   |   1:37   |   (0) comments


Rene Olde Olthof, Operations Director LeaseWeb, talks about the next data center transformation during CeBIT 2014.
LRTV Documentaries
Comcast: Reshaping the Cable Network Architecture

4|3|14   |   07:11   |   (8) comments


Shamim Akhtar, Comcast's architect and senior director of network strategy, explains why the cable company is moving to a more distributed network architecture.
LRTV Custom TV
VMware CEO Pat Gelsinger at Mobile World Congress

4|1|14   |   3:41   |   (0) comments


VMware CEO Pat Gelsinger speaks to Heavy Reading about the value of virtualization spanning from the data center to service provider networks to mobile devices.
LRTV Huawei Video Resource Center
Analysts' Impressions of Huawei SoftCOM at ONS 2014

4|1|14   |   1:11   |   (0) comments


After visiting the Huawei booth at ONS, Lee Doyle of Doyle Research gives his appraisal of Huawei's SoftCOM solution.
Hot Topics
BlackBerry Invests in Healthcare IT Startup
Sarah Reedy, Senior Editor, 4/15/2014
Volvo: AT&T HSPA+ Can Drive My Car
Sarah Reedy, Senior Editor, 4/16/2014
T-Mobile Petitions Operators to Kill Overages
Sarah Reedy, Senior Editor, 4/14/2014
Cisco & VMware Are Apple & Google of SDN
Mitch Wagner, West Coast Bureau Chief, Light Reading, 4/14/2014
Mobile Apps Susceptible to Heartbleed, Too
Sarah Reedy, Senior Editor, 4/14/2014
Like Us on Facebook
Twitter Feed