x
Optical/IP

Alcatel Stars in Multiservice Switch Test

Light Reading today published the results of its test of next-generation multiservice switches, turning up the heat under vendors who've yet to prove that their equipment can deliver the goods when handling IP and MPLS as well as ATM.

Only one vendor -- Alcatel SA (NYSE: ALA; Paris: CGEP:PA) -- accepted Light Reading's invitation to participate in the tests. Its 7670 Routing Switch Platform (RSP) did exceptionally well.

It turned in really stunning ATM performance, getting a total of 38 out of 40 possible points in a scoring system that gives the results of each test a star rating on a scale of 1 to 5. (See the Multiservice Switch Test for the results in full.)

Alcatel also did well -- although not as well -- in a series of tests that assessed the 7670 RSP's MPLS and native IP performance. It garnered a total of 35 out of 50 possible points, giving it an overall rating between "good" and "very good."

Alcatel's lowest score -- 2 stars -- was for a test of 7670's MPLS tunnel reroute performance. It took up to 8.9 seconds to reroute 1,000 paths. Alcatel expects to improve this radically by implementing fast rerouting (see MPLS Vendors Demo Fast Reroute).

These tests deserve special recognition on at least three counts. First, they are genuinely independent. Light Reading paid for them, not Alcatel.

Second, they were conducted for Light Reading by European Advanced Networking Test Center AG (EANTC), which has a world-class reputation for conducting ATM and MPLS tests.

Finally, the tests themselves were very thorough. There were 17 tests in all, and the test plan was the result of a lot of consultation -- not just with Alcatel and Agilent Technologies Inc. (NYSE: A), which provided the test equipment, but with many other potential test participants.

These included Marconi plc (Nasdaq/London: MONI), which initially committed to participating in the tests and encouraged us to emphasize ATM and pay less attention to MPLS. In the end, Marconi pulled out and paid the Tolly Group to test its switch, focusing heavily on its ATM performance (see Marconi's Switch Gets Tolly-fied).

More than 15 other vendors were invited to participate in Light Reading's test, and declined or didn't reply. There were plenty of excuses, but the fact remains that only Alcatel has proved its switch works in an independent test. The rest haven't.

— Peter Heywood, Founding Editor, Light Reading
www.lightreading.com Want to know more? The big cheeses of the optical networking industry will be discussing multiservice switches at Lightspeed Europe. Check it out at Lightspeed Europe 02.

Page 1 / 5   >   >>
edgecore 12/4/2012 | 9:17:07 PM
re: Alcatel Stars in Multiservice Switch Test ============
Alcatel's lowest score -- 2 stars -- was for a test of 7670's MPLS tunnel reroute performance. It took up to 8.9 seconds to reroute 1,000 paths. Alcatel expects to improve this radically by implementing fast rerouting
============

I am curious as to the structure of the application that does this rerouting, can it be "parrallelized" at all? meaning if you tried it on a control card running 2 or even 4 Motorola PowerPC 7455's symmetrically, would this speed up the performance significantly?

EC

skeptic 12/4/2012 | 9:17:05 PM
re: Alcatel Stars in Multiservice Switch Test I am curious as to the structure of the application that does this rerouting, can it be "parrallelized" at all? meaning if you tried it on a control card running 2 or even 4 Motorola PowerPC 7455's symmetrically, would this speed up the performance significantly?
---------------------
The rerouting application doesn't go parallel
very well. The rerouting operations tend to
do operations on the same data set. Reservations
can have effects on other reservations in some
cases as well. I'm not saying its impossible,
but its not a classic divide-and-conquer
multiprocessor type problem.

Alcatel's rerouting takes way too long because
of design flaws in the software they are
(probably) using.

The comment about "fast rerouting" is meaningless.
Alcatel has a scalability issue in their software
and fast reroute doesn't fix it.
Tony Li 12/4/2012 | 9:17:04 PM
re: Alcatel Stars in Multiservice Switch Test I'm not sure I agree. If they are running a CSPF for each of those paths, then that translates to about 9ms per SPF. That's not TOO horrible, assuming an 'interesting' topology.

I think they might get a factor of 2 or 4 out of it, but it's not many orders of magnitude off.

Tony
skeptic 12/4/2012 | 9:17:02 PM
re: Alcatel Stars in Multiservice Switch Test Tell us why NT did not show off their outstanding performance ?
-------------

I have no idea. Why don't you grow up and
learn to live with the fact that your product
isn't perfect.

Every test I comment on, somehow like you shows
up and says I work for cisco/juniper/CWNT/
marconi/whoever. Great. Live in your dream
world.

lite-brite 12/4/2012 | 9:17:02 PM
re: Alcatel Stars in Multiservice Switch Test if no one else will say it, kudos to Alcatel for submitting their equipment. I know you'll all say that this wasn't tested properly, or that was missed out, but what the h**l, they put their box up for test and that's the bottom line! And don't give me that crap about 'why should companies put their gear up for test unless it will result in a sale (i.e. 'be designed in'); the same reason they advertise it!!
l-b
deer_in_the_light 12/4/2012 | 9:17:02 PM
re: Alcatel Stars in Multiservice Switch Test Tell us why NT did not show off their outstanding performance ?
yea_right 12/4/2012 | 9:17:01 PM
re: Alcatel Stars in Multiservice Switch Test "More than 15 other vendors were invited to participate in Light Reading's test, and declined or didn't reply. There were plenty of excuses, but the fact remains that only Alcatel has proved its switch works in an independent test. The rest haven't."

Come on, face it. It is a failure as far as lightreading is concerned. You guys couldnt convince more than one vendor for the test. That shows a lot.

I think, first you guys have to prove the world that you are credible both when you perform "independent testing" and while writing columns on your website.

Yeah, you can blame all those who didnt participate but why would they spend their $$ in this market for an "independent test" that may mean "nothing". If a test involves only one vendor, is it useful for anyone other than Alcatel ?

Grow up guys, if you want to win the industry, win the vendors, they make the industry. Prove them you are fair and they can trust you, before throwing mud at them.
ip-eng 12/4/2012 | 9:17:00 PM
re: Alcatel Stars in Multiservice Switch Test >Every test I comment on, somehow like you shows
>up and says I work for cisco/juniper/CWNT/
>marconi/whoever. Great. Live in your dream
>world.

Skeptic - you're right - its good to see your comments and people should not jump to the conclusion that you are working for the competition.

ip-eng 12/4/2012 | 9:17:00 PM
re: Alcatel Stars in Multiservice Switch Test
1)
>why would they spend their $$ in this market for
>an "independent test" that may mean "nothing".

Read the announcement - light reading paid the $$, so why should venders have a problem when someone else is paying for the tests?

These tests deserve special recognition on at least three counts. First, they are genuinely independent. Light Reading paid for them, not Alcatel.

=============================================

2)
>it was tested at EANTC who has no credibility
someone posted this about the 7770 OBX - so why would lightreading pay someone without any credibility?

Looking forward to all your answers.

broadbandboy 12/4/2012 | 9:17:00 PM
re: Alcatel Stars in Multiservice Switch Test skeptic wrote: "The comment about "fast rerouting" is meaningless. Alcatel has a scalability issue in their software and fast reroute doesn't fix it."

------------------------

Skeptic, ignoring the software issue, it seems reasonable to me that implementing frr should improve rerouting performance. Isn't that what its supposed to do? With frr, back up paths are precomputed and presignalled. If the reroute can occur at any potential point of local repair, doesn't that simplify and speed up the rerouting process?

Of course, it would require a different test scenario to validate FRR performance, which is supposed to meet or beat Sonet APS.

BBboy
Page 1 / 5   >   >>
HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE