x
Cable/Video

Verizon's Chuck Graff: Heat Seeker

DCITDave 12/5/2012 | 4:02:33 PM
re: Verizon's Chuck Graff: Heat Seeker

Well, to be fair, he's announcing something that hasn't been finalized or released yet. So the devil is in the details.


I'm pretty sure his mission for this show was just to make everyone aware of it, then they can haggle over HOW the thermal vetting is carried out in their individual meetings with vendors. 


 

volkot 12/5/2012 | 4:02:33 PM
re: Verizon's Chuck Graff: Heat Seeker I have left the venue with strong impression that Chuck Graff has no clue what he is talking about.

Of course, Verizon has the buying power so vendors will comply with whatever they can come up with.

But is it good for the industry?
volkot 12/5/2012 | 4:02:26 PM
re: Verizon's Chuck Graff: Heat Seeker

Indeed, the devil is in the details.


I have recently had a chance to review Verizon TPR document set on energy efficiency. The results were a bit shocking.


First of all, TPR9205 does not define the test procedure for performance estimates. It merely assumes the performance numbers are magically known.


This probably stems from the fact that Verizon-certified labs (ITLs) are designed for physical protection (crash/burn) tests and are not equipped with telecom gear, bit blasters and engineers qualified for performance tests. Another possible reason is that the spec was written by Bellheads, who never dealt with anything newer than TDM/DWDM switches where system performance always equals the sum of the face port values.


In other words, any router/switch results (aka Verizon TEEER metrics) reported by ITLs are expected to be way off the mark to start with (think fast router vs slow router with equal consumption yield identical metrics).


Second, TPR9207 document is designed to translate DUT TEEER numbers into theoretical monetary gains relative to a "reference" system. The description of this relatively trivial algorithm is mathematically flawed (attempts to apply linear transform to logarithmical TEER value) and thus is quite meaningless - someone at Verizon missed a calculus class in high school.


So, in the area of energy efficiency Verizon operates with incorrect data set and goes on to draw meaningless conclusions from it. I can only imagine what will be there in TPR9208.


Frankly, I feel sorry for vendors who have to deal with all that.

joe_average 12/5/2012 | 4:02:25 PM
re: Verizon's Chuck Graff: Heat Seeker

Volkot - You are probably right about many of the aspects of your critisms but, to be fair, Chuck is just following his well established and successful strategy for getting vendors to comply with other physical requirements such as NEBS.


 


When Verizon started their NEBS program (back in the NYNEX-Bell Atlantic days!), compliance to the NEBS requirements was very random. We didn't even pay too much attention to items that Verizon thought was critical (i.e., fire spread). Chuck forced the vendor community to line-up to his requirements, perhaps not overnight, but certainly fairly quickly.


 


I've got to say that I support this initiative in principle but, like you, I worry about the implementation details. Hopefully Verizon will be responsive to vendor input once testing uncovers methodology issues.


 


Now if Chuck can just find a way to accept Pb-free solder assemblies. :)

volkot 12/5/2012 | 4:02:24 PM
re: Verizon's Chuck Graff: Heat Seeker joe_average,

I think you hit the issue head-on.

Chuck Graff's group was producing good results when they stayed in their primary domain of knowledge - that is, physical protection. I can also give them credit for bringing the issue of energy efficiency into the spotlight.

But their recent efforts starting with TPR9205 implementation look half-cooked if not plain wrong.
I would much prefer them to bring their TEEER effort to a reasonably credible state before venturing into new domains.
HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE