x
Optical/IP

Cisco Eyeing Sonus

Several sources say that Cisco Systems Inc. (Nasdaq: CSCO) and Sonus Networks Inc. (Nasdaq: SONS) have been talking – and those discussions could lead to acquisition by Cisco.

So far the relationship has been described as exploratory, say sources close to investment banking interests. Light Reading could not confirm whether a deal had been made or what the price would be.

Sonus builds voice over IP (VOIP) gateways for carriers that allow them to carry voice traffic over packet-based network.

One venture capitalist familiar with the market, speaking under condition of anonymity, said a deal would likely get done at a slight premium and said he could see Sonus being sold for $5 or $6 per share. Sonus was trading at $3.20 during the late afternoon today.

Another source pointed to Paul Ferri, partner at Matrix Partners and Sonus board member, who is known for his impatience when companies hit rough patches, as Sonus has. This source tells Light Reading that Ferri may have an itchy trigger finger: "When Ferri decides to do something, he makes it happen." (See Top Ten Movers and Shakers, No. 5.)

Would a combination of Cisco and Sonus make sense? On many levels, it seems like a good fit. Here’s why:

  • Sonus is widely regarded as a leader in the voice softswitch market, and Cisco has struggled to build a leadership position in that market.
  • The capital-spending crunch in the telecom market has put the emerging VOIP market on ice, chilling Sonus’s prospects for near-term growth.
  • Sonus’s numbers have recently hit a rough patch. For the fourth quarter of 2001, the company reported revenues of $38.9 million and an adjusted net loss of $7.7 million. The company also warned that revenue was expected to decline again in the first quarter of 2002, but it has not provided specific guidance.
  • With losses, Sonus’s financial position has deteriorated, and they may be in need of a deep-pocketed partner to get them through the lean years. For example, as of the end of 2001, Sonus had $125 million in cash and short-term investments. One quarter earlier, the company held $137.4 million in cash and short-term investments.
Some analysts describe the combination as an evergreen rumor on Wall Street, but they say that's because the deal makes sense.

"It would be a great fit, because Sonus has strong technology and it's successfully deployed in large carrier networks," says Richard Church, a senior analyst with Wachovia Securities. "Cisco has talked about this as a tornado market, but so far they're only in the enterprise [market]."

Church said that with $125 million in cash, Sonus could stick it out as an independent company and have enough funds to last well over a year if it continues losing money at the current pace. However, he noted that it is more difficult to sell products to large carriers, especially RBOCs and ILECs, as a small independent company.

However, news of the talks was greeted with skepticism by some. "That rumor comes around every week," says Sam Wilson, an analyst with Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. "But I doubt Cisco is very interested. Sonus is going after the Internet offload market, and that market has pretty much peaked already. It's also unclear if they'll offer class-4 or class-5 replacement." Wilson said Cisco is more likely to be interested in a smaller, private company.

Another factor: Cisco has said it still plans to do acquisitions this year, just on a smaller scale. But it has also said it’s looking for a company with shipping product. Sonus fits that description.

Sonus officials could not be reached at press time. A Cisco spokeswoman said the company had no comment.

— R. Scott Raynovich, US Editor, and Marguerite Reardon, Senior Editor Light Reading
http://www.lightreading.com
Wowwo2 12/4/2012 | 10:46:08 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus You are the documented liar !!

http://www.lightreading.com/bo...

"ADIR recently completed their VOXIS management software and gatekeeper and CSCO although not announcing it publicly has incorporated it into their most important gateways.
"

CSCO installed NOTHING !!!!

"Products developed under the agreement were never integrated into Cisco's product line, according to Net2Phone. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/ne...

LIAR !!

fatladysings 12/4/2012 | 10:47:10 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Bond was convertible to equity
mrcasual 12/4/2012 | 10:48:08 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus
As such the stress tests where you send 64 byte packets (or whatever your favourite
small packet size is) continously for minutes/hours are meaningless.
____________________

Extended duration line rate tests reveal the worst case latency added by that network
element. How else does one make that emperical measurement?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Oops. Forgot about that one.

But then again an extended test with statistical traffic could find the same thing.

Most implementations I have seen do not usually have latency variations as a function of packet size. They usually exhibit throughput issues.
skeptic 12/4/2012 | 10:48:10 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus As such the stress tests where you send 64 byte packets (or whatever your favourite small packet size is) continously for minutes/hours are meaningless.
____________________

Extended duration line rate tests reveal the worst case latency added by that network element. How else does one make that emperical measurement?

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

If the purpose is measuring latency or testing
basic stability, its a
reasonable thing to do. But sometimes the
packet forwarding benchmarks seem to take
on a life of their own which is divorced from
reality.

From my point of view, I want the device to have
reasonable latency and be stable. The bar is
set at a certain level and vendors either
pass or fail. And pratically speaking I dont
know of a good reason for putting the bar at
100%.

Obsessing over some of these numbers (pick your
favorite packet size) can as often as not lead
in the long run to systems being misdesigned
to work well at a common test-point while it
falls to pieces everywhere else.
watchtower 12/4/2012 | 10:48:12 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus I also second the push to have LightMan stop the softsell on his web site (which consquently isn't very good).
watchtower 12/4/2012 | 10:48:12 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus optical_man, I second your opinion.

LightMan, you bring very little value to these conversations. It's evident you've never worked on or with these systems before.

Are you struggling for a career change?


>""Author: LightMan Number: 71
>Subject: Re: 2002 Core IP router requirements >Date: 3/12/2002 11:23:47 PM
>Don't know if I follow you. While I agree that >the info is high-level, I think it provides a >useful datapoint which vendors can use to >directionally assess their product fit. Granted, >it would be better if they delineated their >sources and questions, (probably could get it) >but my take is - I'll take what info I can.
>Not really a counterpoint - just a follow-on. >What is interesting is that it appears that they >are going to have trials to see how they meet >what they have interpreted as carriers needs.
>So given the vendors at large, who do you think >meets this criteria the best?""
>
>Lightman,
>OK, you're doing the softsell on your website, >www.thesoftwareprompt.com. Every one of your >messages has the same non committal tone to it.
>This last one is great! Right out of a marketing >slick:
>
>"..it provides a useful datapoint which vendors >can use to directionally assess their product fit"
>
>Please explain what the heck that means? A quick >question: What is a "datapoint" anyway? Is it a >point on a chart, or is it a silly word t make >one sound Perfeshenial.
>
>Coupled with your last comment " given the >vendors at large, who do you think meets this >criteria the best?"
>
>You seem to pose that question each and every >time, in varying forms. Something for us to think >about and visit your site to answer?
>Please stop. I learn a lot while I'm here, and >your softsell is getting on my nerves (take it >from a professional sales weenie).
>Thanks!!
rjmcmahon 12/4/2012 | 10:48:13 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus As such the stress tests where you send 64 byte packets (or whatever your favourite small packet size is) continously for minutes/hours are meaningless.
____________________

Extended duration line rate tests reveal the worst case latency added by that network element. How else does one make that emperical measurement?
mrcasual 12/4/2012 | 10:48:14 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus 100% line rates in practical situations are meaningless.
_________________

How does one build a packet network with deterministic latency characteristics if the
elements don't meet line rate?


I think the original comment was meant to convey the fact that in the real world you will NEVER see a line 100% utilized for any significant period of time. As such the stress tests where you send 64 byte packets (or whatever your favourite small packet size is) continously for minutes/hours are meaningless. Keeping up with a "normal", i.e. statistical distribution of traffic, is pretty easy.

The stream of packets tests are an interesting way to flush out "holes" in the datapath architecture. As an example 64 bytes might pass, but 65 might not. In the real world it is also possible to get reasonably sized bursts of back to back traffic. Stress tests are a convenient, although somewhat contrived, way to test the robustness of the datapath.

I don't know that I've ever seen a test where the packet size is swept over a range from say 32 to 128 bytes in one byte increments. I fully expect that if you did that you would see lots of performance holes in pretty much every datapath out there as internal bus/cell boundaries are crossed.
rjmcmahon 12/4/2012 | 10:48:15 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus 100% line rates in practical situations are meaningless.
_________________

How does one build a packet network with deterministic latency characteristics if the elements don't meet line rate?
skeptic 12/4/2012 | 10:48:30 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Please explain. I am aware of the debate on packet reordering, and I've heard from both the Juniper rep, as well as the 9 Cisco guys I deal with on this. I'm thinking that it's a non issue (sortof like ATM is gtd, but packet is best effort, but I like packet better).
Do you have some insights that may enlighten me more?
-----------------------------------------

Ok. In my opinion, Juniper did something
(reordering) that should not be encouraged.
Everyone could take short-cuts in packet
forwarding or refuse (as Juniper has) to
fix a problem in their ASICs. But the network
ultimately suffers for their having done it.

Its possible that a particular person might
not see whats going on or that customers are
too lazy to see that their TCP sessions are
getting messed up, but it is a "bad thing"
for the internet to encourge vendors to
engage in behavior that if it becomes more
widespread is going to create problems.

And why should Juniper get credit for something
like 100% line rate on OC-48 and OC-192 as
"best forwarding". When most people know full
well that the 100% line rates in practical
situations are meaningless. I care that it
doesn't crash, but wire-speed at 100% line rate
on packets in benchmarks that
sometimes now less than the size of ATM cells means nothing to me.

So what I'm saying is that if I'm to give them
"credit" for best forwarding based on worthless
benchmarks that don't mean much in the real
world, why should I not give them a penalty
for breaking the rules and refusing to fix
a bug that they have known about for a long
time now.



skeptic 12/4/2012 | 10:48:31 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus So given the vendors at large, who do you think meets this criteria the best?
--------------

Out of the vendors where information is available:


Packet forwarding: Juniper (because of the ACL
requirement and because
BT doesn't mention packet
reordering)

Protocol limits: Juniper and CWNT
(but nobody has reached those MPLS
benchmarks in public yet).
Reliability: Nobody even comes close.
everyone fails.
Interoprability: Cisco (because whatever they
do ends up being defined as interoprability)

Everything else is about even (more or less).





System Availability:
All the current vendors get a "D"


Hardware Redundancy
I think everyone will meet this with
the exception of the 50ms failure time in
some cases.

Software Redundancy/Hitless Upgrades

Nobody meets this. Cisco's new scheme
to change OSPF/ISIS/BGP is a non-starter as
far as I'm concerned.

The Pluris HA story
(at least for BGP) seems even worse, but its
so strangely described that I still can't
figure out exactly what it is.

As far as Hyperchip goes, beyond buying Ads
on Lightreading, there is not information on
what they are doing.

Caspian. No details from Caspian beyond saying
that they are doing "something". Its still not
clear if the "something" is tied up with their
propritary networking protocols or not.



Hardware Availability
Maybe people can meet this. The software
always seems to mask the true hardware
availability.

Software Availabilty
Everyone gets a D or an F.

Wirespeed packet forwarding
If QOS and ACLs are on, probably but
juniper can meet their metric. Given how
badly the light reading router test went,
its hard to tell how anyone beyond CWNT/cisco
/juniper will do.

Of course not mentioned is reordering.
If packet reordering is an issue, Juniper gets
an "F".

Efficient protocol implementations

- This section is mostly useless. These
are not the real requirements for a core router
in most cases:

Examples:
- The flapping tests don't mean anything
without knowing the type and number of
peers.
- IGP convergence time of 5 seconds in
what circumstances?
- How many links for ECMP support?
- 20,000 IGP routes in what sort of
topology?
- 1 M BGP routes where? In BGP or in
the FIB? (or in Juniper's case out on
a hard drive).
Range of interfaces
Most people should meet this.

Multicast
In my opinion, its still unclear what the
real requirements for multicast in networks are.



Quality of Service
Most people should be able to meet this.
Certain routers may have a problem with
latency.

IP/Optical internetworking
They might as well have left it out because
they didn't provide what should be supported.

Security requirements
Most people should meet this. The only
exception being MD5 for IS-IS which I dont think
cisco does. And I don't know how many people
do port mirroring.

Management features
Again, nothing special here. The integrate
with existing OSS is (intentionally) vague it
seems. So how can vendors be measured?



Environmentals
Which NEBS? How much power? How much
heat? Its all too vague for anyone to do
anything with. Which NEBS is actually an
important question as is the "maximum"
environmentals carriers are willing to put
up with.

Interoprability
Great. Its required. But they don't
define what it really means. Everyone meets
this in their own mind.






optical_man 12/4/2012 | 10:48:31 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus skeptic,
your comment:
"Of course not mentioned is reordering.
If packet reordering is an issue, Juniper gets
an "F"."

Please explain. I am aware of the debate on packet reordering, and I've heard from both the Juniper rep, as well as the 9 Cisco guys I deal with on this. I'm thinking that it's a non issue (sortof like ATM is gtd, but packet is best effort, but I like packet better).
Do you have some insights that may enlighten me more?

optical_man 12/4/2012 | 10:48:31 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus ""Author: LightMan Number: 71
Subject: Re: 2002 Core IP router requirements Date: 3/12/2002 11:23:47 PM
Don't know if I follow you. While I agree that the info is high-level, I think it provides a useful datapoint which vendors can use to directionally assess their product fit. Granted, it would be better if they delineated their sources and questions, (probably could get it) but my take is - I'll take what info I can.
Not really a counterpoint - just a follow-on. What is interesting is that it appears that they are going to have trials to see how they meet what they have interpreted as carriers needs.
So given the vendors at large, who do you think meets this criteria the best?""

Lightman,
OK, you're doing the softsell on your website, www.thesoftwareprompt.com. Every one of your messages has the same non committal tone to it.
This last one is great! Right out of a marketing slick:

"..it provides a useful datapoint which vendors can use to directionally assess their product fit"

Please explain what the heck that means? A quick question: What is a "datapoint" anyway? Is it a point on a chart, or is it a silly word t make one sound Perfeshenial.

Coupled with your last comment " given the vendors at large, who do you think meets this criteria the best?"

You seem to pose that question each and every time, in varying forms. Something for us to think about and visit your site to answer?
Please stop. I learn a lot while I'm here, and your softsell is getting on my nerves (take it from a professional sales weenie).
Thanks!!
LightMan 12/4/2012 | 10:48:32 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Don't know if I follow you. While I agree that the info is high-level, I think it provides a useful datapoint which vendors can use to directionally assess their product fit. Granted, it would be better if they delineated their sources and questions, (probably could get it) but my take is - I'll take what info I can.

Not really a counterpoint - just a follow-on. What is interesting is that it appears that they are going to have trials to see how they meet what they have interpreted as carriers needs.

So given the vendors at large, who do you think meets this criteria the best?

LightMan
http://www.thesoftwareprompt.c...
optical_man 12/4/2012 | 10:48:40 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Author: Wowwo2 Number: 69
Subject: Of course you didn-¦t post that : Date: 3/12/2002 1:47:06 PM
http://www.siliconinvestor.com...
Click , compare and
ROTFLMAOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

wowwow,
take it over to yahoo.
please keep it to technology and executive moves/adds/changes (MAC's).
btw, it rotflmaooo... a signaling technique or a ietf protocol?
Wowwo2 12/4/2012 | 10:48:41 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus http://www.siliconinvestor.com...

Click , compare and

ROTFLMAOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
skeptic 12/4/2012 | 10:48:41 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus
The document from BTexact while useful, is
a high level set of requirements for a core
router. Its not a detailed set of requirements
or anything that vendors should be claiming
conformance with.


Wowwo2 12/4/2012 | 10:48:43 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Warning !!! The poster John is who wrote the NTOP ADIR post is a well known documented and proven liar also known as Hawaii60 or Hawaii60_60 from the IDT & NTOP Yahoo,SiliconInvestor and RagingBull messageboards.He is a 24/7 paid pumper on IDT & NTOP! Do your DD on this guy !
You were warned !

john 12/4/2012 | 10:48:43 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Documented liar.

I have no idea what you are tlaking about but you must be short ntop, a weirdo or some sort of hate monger.

Take it somewhere else.
steve 12/4/2012 | 10:48:44 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Thanks optical_man, that was very helpful,
balto
LightMan 12/4/2012 | 10:48:44 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Stumbled on this from BTexact - worth reading. Looks like Avici has signed up to see how well it performs against these requirements.

http://www.btexact.com/white_p...

LightMan
www.thesoftwareprompt.com

adobe2 12/4/2012 | 10:48:45 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus That is not going to happen, I doubt that Sonus
deal is true either.
Cisco is announcing three startup acquisitions in six months.
Take a look at this:
From Bloomberg news today:
www.bloomberg.com, the article with the headlines:
US stocks fall, Lucent, Nokia cut sales outlook.



switch625 12/4/2012 | 10:48:46 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus This has been an on-off-on-off rumor for about the last 3 years or so...I wouldn't put much stock in it (no pun intended <g>).</g>
belas_knap 12/4/2012 | 10:48:47 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Nope, this doesn't make sense - clearly a rumour to move up share prices. What would Cisco gain by buying Ciena/ONI now ? From a product point of view Core Director may be interesting, but the longhaul is no better than Cisco's (other than its installed base) and the Metro offering (K2/ONI) is also on or below a par with the 15454 or their Metro DWDM in the US. Also, they would not want to add such a large amount of headcount & low margin product to their product line, confusing the market & customers. Ciena/ONI are also pretty much US players, and Cisco already has a strong US product offering - they would only acquire if the acquisition brought sizeable revenues or customer base in both the US and International markets, and ONI/Ciena do not have this in the important Metro space - anyone actually seen sizeable deployments in Europe or Asia of K2?. The only possible reason that Cisco would acquire would be for market share/customer gain, and I think that there are much better companies to acquire for this for a lot less cash.
john 12/4/2012 | 10:48:49 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus For approx. 300M and will be announced SOON.

Here is the beef.

CSCO invested about 40M so far with Net2phone in order to get a piece of NTOP's ADIR unit. ADIR is a NTOP company that makes gateways and management software that can handle 100's of thousands of calls at once and do everything from LCR (least cost routing) to fraud protection.

ADIR recently completed their VOXIS management software and gatekeeper and CSCO although not announcing it publicly has incorporated it into their most important gateways.

http://www.cisco.com/univercd/...

This is ADIR's site

http://adirtech.com/blastpop.h...

ADIR aquired Netspeak not too long ago with additional money given it by CSCO. The deal was when VOXIS was complete they would buy the entire company from NTOP for a predetermined price which will not be less than 300M because that is the previous enterprise value established with CSCO's own investment.

Here is the kicker. Listen to NTOP's conference call from just a week ago. The CEO of NTOP stated their would be an important announcement regarding ADIR and CSCO "SOON"

This is the deal. It is NOT SONS, it is NTOP's ADIR untit
who is john galt? 12/4/2012 | 10:48:50 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Thought your drink of choice wuz Belvedere (shaken, not stirred, and very cold).
LightMan 12/4/2012 | 10:48:54 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Heard on CNBC that Cisco disclosed some information on internal startups in their 10Q today. Anyone have any details what problems they are trying to solve? I know - I could RTF10Q, but I am too lazy.

TIA,

LightMan
//www.thesoftwareprompt.com
watchtower 12/4/2012 | 10:48:55 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus You are reaching. A bond is very different from personal shares controlled by a single person (i.e. Matt Bross).

BS is not going to get scrutinized for holding a bond on a startup of questionable stability. (That's not a jab at SONS. All startups are volatile.)

The simple fact: if an acquired asset doesn't pay off, it get's written off. In Siemens' case, they'll probably have to write off the castle investment.
layer3 12/4/2012 | 10:48:56 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus CSCO is not buying Cien or any other optical equipment provider- biggest reason is gross margins. CSCO has gotten their numbers back to tthe mid 50s, while no optical vendor makes more than 30% GM.

As for SONUS, well, Cisco rumors of buying out troubled companies will come an go; with their market cap and cash position, theyll be mentioned a lot- but before Chambers buys anyone else, he needs to decide whether CSCO will attack the SP space, or be happy selling high margin routers as CPE devices. I bet Cisco leaves DWDM, DSLAM space and focusses on ethernet switches/routers. Only way to keep stock trading at 100+ PE- keep gross margin up...

My 2 cents...

L3
opticaltalent 12/4/2012 | 10:48:57 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus
I think this is a blatent attempt by investment bankers to drive stock prices. They start acquisition rumors in hopes that one or more stocks will go up 20-30% from where it started at the beginning of the day in hopes that paniced frenzy will create a jump start that will fuel more substaniated growth.

As Ice Cube's new movie says its "All About the Benjamins."
skeptic 12/4/2012 | 10:48:57 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Some news websites giving account of Cisco interested in acquiring Ciena, potentially taking advantage of stock depressed-levels - makes sense?
-------------
The stock price is depressed, but its unclear
if it would stay depressed if cisco went
after them.

I also think that the market is going to view
any big M&A by cisco as a negative right now.
Until they (cisco) get their own house in
order, big acquisitions should be out of the
question.
jorgeleonel 12/4/2012 | 10:48:58 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Some news websites giving account of Cisco interested in acquiring Ciena, potentially taking advantage of stock depressed-levels - makes sense?
optical_man 12/4/2012 | 10:48:59 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Author: watchtower Number: 51
Subject: Re: Consolidation Date: 3/11/2002 1:25:58 PM
Siemens will likely write off their castle/unisphere investment like they wrote off argon.
Sonus' win at BellSouth sealed castle/unisphere's fate as a product line with no entry point into the RBOCs.
Agree?

I would agree if it weren't for ENRON. The sonus win at BellSouth was a financial deal with some sort of bond/investment in Sonus by Bellsouth. Granted, this is old news (the financial questions of the deal), it was addressed by Forbes on 9/17, but it's still recent enough so as to cause some high brass to squirm if the investors start asking questions like "you at BS wouldn't play these games with the startups would you?" As the heat rises on Enron and Global Xing, I would bet that Bellsouth reconsiders it's dealings with a company who floated stock options to get their gear into Bellsouth's network. (it seems a little like the Matt Bross stink down at Williams).

Am I reaching here?

dbasnett 12/4/2012 | 10:49:00 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus If you are speaking of replacing the existing network with an IP based solution, I hope it won't be today. Until such time as VoIP and the underlying network become more reliable would you trust your life / families life on it?

As far as VoIP connecting business offices instead of a more traditional approach, it works OK in our company though the cost / port was high.
watchtower 12/4/2012 | 10:49:00 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Siemens will likely write off their castle/unisphere investment like they wrote off argon.

Sonus' win at BellSouth sealed castle/unisphere's fate as a product line with no entry point into the RBOCs.

Agree?

>You wrote:
>
>Siemens - Will go it alone, their switching >presence is really in the international markets. >North America is their 3rd largest market with >19M installed lines. Europe and China combined >dwarf North America, so it is kinda interesting. >Question is do they really need to be more than >number 3 in the North American Class 5 market? > Big question I have is what do they do with
> Unisphere/Castle?
skeptic 12/4/2012 | 10:49:05 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus The guy that wanted to take out the Class 5 switches, Kevin Kennedy, is gone. Chambers doesn't have the stomach for taking on the carrier market. If Cisco buys Sonus, it will die, like IPCELL, Monterey, PixStream, etc., etc., etc.
-----------

So whats your take on HFR? (or whatever its
called now). Do you think cisco is really
committed to it or it is only continuing
as a project for external marketing propoganda
value.

deepciscothroat 12/4/2012 | 10:49:06 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus The guy that wanted to take out the Class 5 switches, Kevin Kennedy, is gone. Chambers doesn't have the stomach for taking on the carrier market. If Cisco buys Sonus, it will die, like IPCELL, Monterey, PixStream, etc., etc., etc.
optical_man 12/4/2012 | 10:49:08 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Author: balto Number: 46
Subject: Softswitch vs. Gateway Date: 3/9/2002 5:56:13 PM
Did some work in this sector awhile back and, after talking to carriers, could not determine if they buy the softswitch (ie features) first and follow with the gateway, or pick the media gateway first (ie density) and follow with the softswitch.

balto,
there's the rub right now. You can't buy just a softswitch and not the gateway. All the major players in this market have built their systems to work as a softswitch/media gateway combo. You CAN buy just the softswitch but then you have to talk via mgcp to a gateway and the perfomrance goes down the drain.

Here's why. If you have a softswitch talking MGCP to the gateway, it has to assume it's a dumb gateway, and has to do all the call processing (all levels) itself. That destroys your bandwidth as well as your processing power (remember these run on Sun boxes, and while good, it's still only 2002 and we don't have Star Trek capable cpu's yet from Sun. I think Sun promised Star Trek type CPU's in early to mid 2003 according to the last sales presentation I saw---he, he, just kidding). If you can hand off some of the call processing to the gateway, then you can let the softswitch do it's job. All the players in this field have followed this same philosophy (although I've noticed that some mask it better than others)

What has been done has been proprietary signalling between these two (yeah I've seen the claims that it's not prop. b/c it's on open standard databases, but no one else can get their code to signal into their networks so I call it prop.) and made the transmission rates reach truly epic proportions. Some of these systems can really haul butt. That is as long as you buy BOTH their softswitch as well their gateway. They have effectively seperated all the traditional circuit switch components out (distributed), but have done it in such a way as to put many, many dsp's into the gateway. So you've got to buy both.

What has been accomplished so far is great for the industry, and the end user. There is much more work to be done. You will see a huge market (RBOC is the market) adoption sometime during the summer of 2003 when some of this is a little more baked.

The players who have a softswitch only (there's about 5 of them worth mentioning) are going to find a tough road, b/c the carriers are finding out that they can't handle the tough test loads that their labs can shovel out. Their marketing pitch has been, 'oh yeah, give me any old media gateway and I'll talk to it'. They can do it, but not at an RBOC level.
steve 12/4/2012 | 10:49:10 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Did some work in this sector awhile back and, after talking to carriers, could not determine if they buy the softswitch (ie features) first and follow with the gateway, or pick the media gateway first (ie density) and follow with the softswitch. Any opinions? Sure are a lot less independant softswitch companies out there.
bitdropper 12/4/2012 | 10:49:12 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus BarBQue, RJ, (hope you don't mind me calling you by your first names)

Hey, you guys are good!

At the risk of disrupting a very entertaining and informative flow here, do either of you have any insight on vendors such as Tekelec, who are approaching this market from their signalling expertise?
BarBQueKid 12/4/2012 | 10:49:12 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Alright, a real dialog!!

1) Right, so what are the SME's buying from the CLECs and ILECs? Still buying MB1's, DID Trunks with hunt groups, ect. To really break it out and see where the revenues are, local voice has to be micro segmented. While the PBX business created local service competition inside the ILECs, interconnectivity amongst Enterprises is still required and VoIP hand off is stalled. ENUM is dieing because it doesn't have an application to drive it's implemenation. My conclusion is we are stuck with some kind of local switching service provider.

Lastly, Basic Telephony is and will always be defined as a untility and access to it will always be defined as a right of the public.

2) It is an $11B market in North America and is supposedly very profitable. The largest users of Centrex is Governments and Large Enterprise. In both cases you find RLS(Remote Line Switches) on premise. So while the application isn't there to migrate everyone, it is a large revenue stream which is being attacked.

3) Agreed, never said they were quick but they do play the strategic game well. They will loose a battle and make points today, to build a case to win the war.

4) Not sure I understand your point, or is it an observation.

5) This is where we part in philosphy. The Global Telecom Market is over a $1Trillion Dollars with 60% of the revenue coming from landline voice. Mobile is now flat in North America because it is still too usage sensative. Mobile applications have taken off in nitche markets and drive revenues, but only in 3rd tier markets where the landline infrastructure doesn't really offer any competition. Don't get me wrong, I believe in wireless, but wireless, like Broadband are an access technology, not a service.

Hey, I like tea, but offer me a good single malt and I'm there!!!
rjmcmahon 12/4/2012 | 10:49:12 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Here's my problems with expecting ILECs to ever take VoIP seriously.

1) The PBX market revealed that most business traffic is locally switched.

2) There really aren't enough revenue generating services to drive this traffic to centrex.

3) ILECs are slow moving monopolies. None of the major computer mfgs could transition to the PC business, so how does an ILEC shed all its workers, retrain them, and become a CLEC?

4) Regulators work for the government. The government works for the geography as much or more than the people. They will maintain the ILEC monopoly.

5) Voice is going mobile and towards a distribution cost of zero. The avenue for a voice network owner is through a mobile solution, and the major ILECs are broke those off into independent companies.

ILECs are a sinking ship. Maybe we need a Boston T1 party before we all realize their taxes aren't beneficial to our society, and this may act as a catalyst to turn the evolution into a revolution.
BarBQueKid 12/4/2012 | 10:49:13 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Their customers are already changing, Line Erosion is kicking their butts. The CLECs continue to grow line count at double digit rates and the market is gowing at a mean of 4%-5%/year. That nets to the ILECs loosing share in their core markets.

The ILECs are experiencing massive competition from CLECs in the Small to Medium Enterprise market, and loss of 2nd lines due because of residential broadband and IP PBX's are killing them in the Large/Medium Enterprise.

They cannot lower their prices in the SME, or Measured Business Line market, without canibalizing their entire base. Especially when Local and LD rates have creeped back up.

Why offer a tariff IP Centrex service to compete with IP PBXs if your required to offer the service, at wholesale rates, to competitors? Only makes sense if it can be unregulated and excluded from the 1996 requirement to unbundle and resell.

I see it as not the technology, but the regulatory issues brought on by competition that will drive lineside VoIP migration. I could be out to lunch, but the data points all align.

Once the ILECs start, then the CLECs will follow because of a need to be compeitive.

On your last point, most of society cannot even program a VCR, why expect society to be concerned about if it is VoIP, TDM or ATM. The average user just wants their telephone service to work, be competitively priced and not require a change in habits.
BarBQueKid 12/4/2012 | 10:49:13 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus My two cents:

Sonus - Tactical buy, decreasing market share, some one will pick up for a steal. Could be Cisco, ALA, Siemens, Nokia, Marconi or Ericsson.

Cisco - Will have to buy, will need a next gen switch plus other components. To be successful they will need to totally revamp their Carrier Voice Business, they do not have a strategy that resonates with the customer base.

Santera - Great target for Cisco, Alcatel, Siemens, Ericsson or Marconi.

LU - Strong US presence and great recuring revenues from Software Licensing on 5ESS installed base. Might acquire, but do the have the currency to acquire. Have not seen a single 7RE announcement. Santera and Telica are best buys for them and Nortel.

Telica - Strong, great acquisition target. My bet is on ALA because of the OEM, but don't be surprised if someone else swoops in and acquires them, question is does ALA have a 1st of refusal as part of the OEM.

Nortel - Going it alone and will make it. Canandian arrogance will keep them from buying a switch. They need help, if they buy it is Santera and/or Telica.

Rapid5 Networks - PLEASE!!!! The VC should have pulled their money last year. Cisco bought a dumb media gateway, it was called Transmedia. Why would anyone want another one of those!!!

ALA - Will buy, rumor has it their internal SS initiatives have spun totally out of control. North America is fight with Belgium and French development teams, Belguim and Frech development teams hate each other and offer competing products. If they acquire likely candidate is Telica, but rumors have Belguim eyeing Sonus. The OEM was only for North America. Sonus feels alot like the DSC acquisition. Pretty good technology, targeted market and referenceable customer base. Still lack a local switching play for North America, but when you own the Class 5 market outside of the North America, do you really need North America?

Siemens - Will go it alone, their switching presence is really in the international markets. North America is their 3rd largest market with 19M installed lines. Europe and China combined dwarf North America, so it is kinda interesting. Question is do they really need to be more than number 3 in the North American Class 5 market? Big question I have is what do they do with Unisphere/Castle?

Ericsson - Not sure, what do you think?

Nokia - Not sure, what do you think?

Marconi - Not sure, what do you think?

rjmcmahon 12/4/2012 | 10:49:13 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus I am confused.

How does an ILEC benefit from line side VoIP? To me it seems like it would just scare the hell out of them as customers would be able to change their LEC like they change their long distance provider.

Fundamentally, they have to close down their wires from point of access and line side VoIP doesn't help them do that.

So why exactly would an ILEC buy line side VoIP solutions?
BarBQueKid 12/4/2012 | 10:49:14 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Cookie,

We are not far apart in our opinions and views of the market. For tariff services the ILECs have boxed themselves into a corner and have to use a evolution strategy to migrate to VoP. This is why I believe Nortel, Lucent and Siemens have a future.

The real question is what happens if the ILECs start to offer VoP services as part of a DIA (dedicated internet access) product. Doesn't this meet the requirements for Advanced Services Designation? Accept this precept and consider what the ILECs are attempting to do with Tauzin/Dingell. Part of it is to get RT unbundling killed, but it would also deregulate their ISP businesses. if both of these things occur to some degree, guess what you have? A motivated ILEC to do Line Side VoIP but converting all traffic to IP at the handset or at the NIU. This gives the ILEC the ability to compete on price with the CLEC and offer an Advanced Sevice using Integrated Access without tariff constraint. The industry has never had a true business driver VoIP in the Local Loop. This I believe finally gives the ILECs a business reason the to force the technology migration.

Regulation has historically been the only driver to force a technology migration on the ILECs. Digial Switching had been around since 1976, not until Equal Access did the ILECs upgrade, creating a major upgrade to Digital Switching in the 80's and 90's. SS7 and AIN capabilities had existed for years and had only seen minimal implementation until the ILEC were forced to upgrade to meet technical and performance requirements of 800 portability. Convergence has suffered the same fate, ATM has existed since the late 80's, given QoS and transport efficiencies this has only SLIGHTLY begun to motivate the ILECs to integrate transmission then only when a STRONG business case existed like LATA tandem exhaust.

Watch the Political landscape and not the technology evolution process to see what new technologies the ILECs will adopt, this will create the next round of hot technology companies.

On your last point, it does matter because if you want to prove in the technology it has to be done with the CLECs and Independents, (btw the Independent Telephone Company market is still strong), this is how I think the next generation Switch Vendors prove they can support line side services.

OALAHEHO, so let me know what you think.
class_5 12/4/2012 | 10:49:14 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus There needs to be some consolidation.
It will be like dominos, once one gets
purchased.

Always follow the money -->> RBOCS

Questions:
Who will be the first to make a big contract with
a RBOCS? Which one(s) have OSMINE certification?
Which one(s) where built for RBOCS and not a CLEC
(redundancy, port density, cost per port)???

Who will get married? Who will go out of
business? Who will make it on their own?

In on order, you match them up:
SonusCisco
SanteraLU
TelicaNortel
Rapid5 NetworksALA
Others.... Siemens

Comments please.


Richard Hatch 12/4/2012 | 10:49:14 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Internet Offload is fairly simple from an implementation standpoint relative to a *real* voice solution (C4/C5), just some simple call number identification, call processing and bulk call routing.

No sophisticated and dynamic call signaling or routing, no high capacity call processing, no large feature set to interwork, no BICC (trunk assignments over packet networks), no carrier-class redundancy, no softswitch control of multiple diversely located gateways, no QoS, etc. is needed or required. You get the point.

Internet Offload has been hard to categorize because the gateway usually sits between an access Tandem and a RAS, so the functionality is seen as Tandem-based. But really the PRI delivery capability (in which you only need unidirectional PRI signaling, not even bidirectional) is really a C5 feature.

Cisco should do some due diligence on Sonus customers, at least one big one that I know of cannot wait to kick them out.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Richard,

Could you please explain more on differences between internet offload and Tandem application.

I was under the impression that Tandem/C4 is much closer to internet offload solution in term of media gateway implementation than to class 5. Class 5 need much more DSP power for all the features and voice processing.
flanker 12/4/2012 | 10:49:17 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Thanks to all for the informative posts. I get the impression that the issues with softswitching /IP trunked class 5 switches are as follows:

1) No TDM trunking is an issue for RBOCS with a lot of legacy equipment. Its easier for ATT to switch over to packet voice, with no local loop to worry about, than Verizon.

2) There are doubts about the robustness of softswitched Class 5 switches.

3) IP trunked switches means SS7 interoperability issues for local C.O.s linked via SS7. It's my understanding SS7 allows for redundancy by ensuring every switch is connected to at least two other local switches using SS7 links. With all these Lu and NT local switches installed, I can see a lot of reluctance to stick a soft-switched box in the the C.O. and just gamble that if a link goes down the redundancy will be in place.

Comments?
easycookie 12/4/2012 | 10:49:19 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Another major down for Cisco is the lack of softswitch - already they are widely perceived as not having enough experience in the voice world. Their half-hearted embedded call control in their gateways just doesn't cut it, and neither do their weak acquisitions in the class 5 area (which will, no doubt be marketed as a low-end offering)! Cisco seems to think they can continue to "water down" ASxxxx DS0s in price points alone to beat others, but most carriers expect a comprehensive story for the softswitch, gateway, services paltform, media server - all just for starters.
easycookie 12/4/2012 | 10:49:19 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus BBQ Kid -

Complete replacement of class 5 is years away - after all the 5ESS and DMS systems are running well and generating money for the RBOCs, so I don't see lack of GR303 for DLCs as a major down for Sonus.

Sonus supports several IADs, supports SIP end-points, H323 end-points etc.

Or are you suggesting having some specific type of line side support, but no support for the traditional services you would expect from the line terminating switch? That's a market I am not sure I see existing today.
easycookie 12/4/2012 | 10:49:20 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Internet Offload and its variants (ICD, PRI offload) remove the data calls from a voice network at the earliest Class 5 possible. The gateways used are mainly for teminating modem calls.

Class 4/5 replacements use the gateways for their true VoIP/VoATM functionality. Class 4 differs from class 5 the same in the packet world as they did in the ckt world - class 5 has more call control features (not necessarily DSP related features at the media gateway), regulatory features like CALEA, 911 etc
optical_man 12/4/2012 | 10:49:21 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Author: truthisoutthere Number: 31
Subject: Re: BarBQ Date: 3/8/2002 7:51:52 PM


Optical_Man:

why let facts get in the way of a discussion?
yes, cisco has the as5300 which can take 8 x T1.
however, note that the as5300 has been around for quite a while now - 3+ years.
cisco also has the as5400 -- 16 x T1 or E1 or 1 x CT3 -- up to 648 concurrent high-complexity VoIP calls in 2RU.
then there's the as5850 -- 96 x T1, 86 x E1 or 5 x CT3 -- up to 3360 concurrent high-complexitiy VoIP calls in 14RU.

What's your beef with my statement that the AS5xxx line does 8-12 T1's? It's true.
However, they don't do 200-500 T1's (that carriers want) and they don't have anything but Cisco IOS (which you have to admit is sort of a kluge.
I don't have anything against Cisco, I think they'll make great masters to the Sonus people and will utilize the Sonus gear very well into their sales and marketing machine.

truthisoutthere 12/4/2012 | 10:49:22 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Optical_Man:

why let facts get in the way of a discussion?

you state:
> cisco has plenty of enterprise voip apps, so
> don't let their marketing numbers fool you.
> next, they DO have some CARRIER class(sortof?)
> equipment that could be used in a small clec
> environ. It's called the AS5300. At last count
> it handled 8 T1's (but the number may be up
> since I last checked) per box.

yes, cisco has the as5300 which can take 8 x T1.
however, note that the as5300 has been around for quite a while now - 3+ years.

cisco also has the as5400 -- 16 x T1 or E1 or 1 x CT3 -- up to 648 concurrent high-complexity VoIP calls in 2RU.

then there's the as5850 -- 96 x T1, 86 x E1 or 5 x CT3 -- up to 3360 concurrent high-complexitiy VoIP calls in 14RU.
rjmcmahon 12/4/2012 | 10:49:30 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus What are the 10 steps required to take down an ILEC? For example, which supply lines need to be cut before sending in the ground troops?
Scott Raynovich 12/4/2012 | 10:49:31 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus >What does Polaris do? Any details?

Last time we checked, it looked like a multiservice metro switch:

http://www.lightreading.com/do...
lightsmith 12/4/2012 | 10:49:32 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Richard,

Could you please explain more on differences between internet offload and Tandem application.

I was under the impression that Tandem/C4 is much closer to internet offload solution in term of media gateway implementation than to class 5. Class 5 need much more DSP power for all the features and voice processing.
who is john galt? 12/4/2012 | 10:49:32 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus What does Polaris do? Any details?
flanker 12/4/2012 | 10:49:32 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus BBQ asked about market opportunities. I am a little down on the domestic CLEC market. I think the best opportunities for 2002-2003 are emerging LECs outside the US, +and+ intl carriers.

The problem is, nobody has the money to spend. I would think the Sonus, Telica and Santera boxes would have a price advantage over traditional class 4/5 switches with similar scale.

If you can undersell NT and Lu on price per port, I think anyone will listen, but players outside the US have limited experience with these types of boxes and therefore its a harder sell.

It comes down to whether you think its worth the effort to support a client in China, Chile or the Czech Republic.



net_exprt 12/4/2012 | 10:49:34 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus they all took off and started a company called Polaris Networks
edwardly 12/4/2012 | 10:49:36 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Whatever happened to Cisco's TransMedia acquisition? At one time TransMedia was developing a very competitive platform in this space. I assume Cisco fouled it up and wrote it off, but I thought someone else might have heard.
Richard Hatch 12/4/2012 | 10:49:39 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus There's a few types of "scalability" that count in packet voice applications.

Bearer traffic (media gateway): Sonus has a 5 G switch fabric, Telica has a 15 G switch fabric and Santera has a 20 G switch fabric. This capacity may or may not be fully used depending on the current density of the line cards. But the existing platforms will be able to accommodate more immediate line card innovations (like what Sonus recently announced) without creating blocking situations.

Call Processing (softswitch): Often measured in terms of calls per second or BHCA. This is harder to measure. Depends on the number of softswitch servers/processors used and software performance. The type and amount of signaling impacts call processing capability too. Many softswich manufacturers quote BHCA numbers based on 10% database dips (TCAP messages per call) which is very aggressive. A better apples-to-apples comparison among softswitches would be a BHCA number based on 100% database dips, a conservative approach that sits well with incumbent customers.

There's also a whole world of difference between delivering Internet Offload functionality and Tandem functionality. Internet Offload wins are tactical and by no means provide meaningful advantages for Tandem/C5 applications. It's a clean slate as far as the incumbent carriers are concerned (though small carriers are different).

Telica also touts the 80,000+ DS0 density of its switch, but that is TDM-only. For TDM-to-packet applications the DS0 density drops to under 20,000. Carriers take note of details like that for long-range planning.

Both Santera and Sonus have softswitches based on general-purpose server platforms (Sun), while Telica relies on customized internal server blades. Vendors that use general-purpose platforms will ride the call-processing scalability/economics wave (based on Moore's Law) over the next 3-5 years, while those with customized internal solutions will not be able to innovate fast enough themselves to keep up.

Since many media gateways only have TDM-to-packet capabilities, they require an external core switch to aggregate/switch traffic when used in multiples. (e.g. Convergent/Telica with Marconi ASX-4000 partnerships) Other multiservice switch/MG combo products can support both capabilities within one platform.

++++++++++++++++++++++++
"I dont think Sonus and Santera/Telica are in the same space. The Sonus product scales massively. They used to hype the lowest cost per port in the industry. I dont know if that's still the key marketing point. "

Sonus has claimed it scales massively. No one really knows for sure yet as it's all Internet Call Diversion (ICD) apps that have been deployed. No large customer has bitten on the other flavors (that I know of). Currently each gateway does around 14000 dso's. They say you just keep adding gateways to get to the number you want.
Telica handles 80,000 dso's per gateway. Right there, you see there is no need to 'scale massively' past that. Except for metro Chicago, LA, NY, etc, but by the time a large RBOC is ready to implement pure voip into these markets, even Lucent will have a voip gateway that can handle that. :) We are talking 2-3 years from now for core metropolotan replacement of 5ESS and DMS250's.
Santera, your guess is as good as mine, but I bet they claim they can 'scale massively' as well.
optical_man 12/4/2012 | 10:49:40 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus let's talk off line on that one. there's some big deals that will happen. it's going to be a fun year (but not a silly 1999 type of year), we are going to have to work for our deals, but they are there.
optical_man 12/4/2012 | 10:49:40 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus bbq man,
here's a nice anon address for you:
[email protected]
who do you work for? am curious as I'm moving out soon.
BarBQueKid 12/4/2012 | 10:49:41 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus great discussion.

Flanker/optical_man, where do you think the big deals are this year and what's driving them.
BarBQueKid 12/4/2012 | 10:49:42 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus It's my job, we are in the same accounts, talking to the same teams with products that are complimentary. The question is always, who do you like and why? It is amazing what you get told if your not a direct competitor.
BarBQueKid 12/4/2012 | 10:49:42 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus On Cisco and the CLEC mentioned, not sure would have to understand the application. I do not that a few smaller CLECs are using Call Manager and AVVID but that solution won't pass the regulatory requirements for interconnection and E.911.

Cisco does have a relationship with Broadsoft and Sylantro and I think Sylantro does the 911 stuff. Once again, you'd have to understand the application. Otherwise it is all speculation.

optical_man 12/4/2012 | 10:49:43 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus "I dont think Sonus and Santera/Telica are in the same space. The Sonus product scales massively. They used to hype the lowest cost per port in the industry. I dont know if that's still the key marketing point. "

Sonus has claimed it scales massively. No one really knows for sure yet as it's all Internet Call Diversion (ICD) apps that have been deployed. No large customer has bitten on the other flavors (that I know of). Currently each gateway does around 14000 dso's. They say you just keep adding gateways to get to the number you want.
Telica handles 80,000 dso's per gateway. Right there, you see there is no need to 'scale massively' past that. Except for metro Chicago, LA, NY, etc, but by the time a large RBOC is ready to implement pure voip into these markets, even Lucent will have a voip gateway that can handle that. :) We are talking 2-3 years from now for core metropolotan replacement of 5ESS and DMS250's.
Santera, your guess is as good as mine, but I bet they claim they can 'scale massively' as well.
flanker 12/4/2012 | 10:49:43 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus I dont think Sonus and Santera/Telica are in the same space. The Sonus product scales massively. They used to hype the lowest cost per port in the industry. I dont know if that's still the key marketing point.

I agree with BBQ that for line aggregation at the local CO, the SONUS product is not the ideal solution.
optical_man 12/4/2012 | 10:49:44 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Author: Nuthinbutnet Number: 13
Subject: BarBQ Date: 3/7/2002 9:31:25 PM
I'm convinced you know this space. Please comment on the following:
Was speaking to a CLEC exec yesterday (yes there might still be a few surviving and thriving) saying they are getting .995 with their Cisco VOIP infrastructure. Apparently they are a big Cisco reference. This may be trunk side only, i'm not sure. They are selling T1s to small biz. Probably reselling BellSouth access.

nut,
quick answer to your cisco question. cisco has plenty of enterprise voip apps, so don't let their marketing numbers fool you. next, they DO have some CARRIER class(sortof?) equipment that could be used in a small clec environ. It's called the AS5300. At last count it handled 8 T1's (but the number may be up since I last checked) per box.
The companies attacking Nortel/Lucent/Siemens market are building boxes that handle 500 - 2000 T1's per box. There's the difference, the RBOC's have CO's that pump that traffic and many times, that times 8, so they need some heavy duty gear. To put cisco in the co would be to buy dozens and dozens of as5300's instead of 3 or 4 gateways from telica, sonus, santera, etc.
So, if cisco wants to reference northern conneticut phone company, let them. The real money is being able to reference someone like Nynex.
optical_man 12/4/2012 | 10:49:44 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus bbq,
how do you know this? answer vaguely if you'd like.

I agree with you on lions share being line side, and that they are making 'tactical plays'. Of course ALL the next generation vendors have to make these tactical plays.
Telica is on the scene and raring to go. Santera is in business, but I'm not sure they're going to get very far. They are a little bit screwed up right now, but who knows, if they get the smallest of SBC press releases approved by SBC then they're off to the races as well!
Nuthinbutnet 12/4/2012 | 10:49:44 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus I'm convinced you know this space. Please comment on the following:

Was speaking to a CLEC exec yesterday (yes there might still be a few surviving and thriving) saying they are getting .995 with their Cisco VOIP infrastructure. Apparently they are a big Cisco reference. This may be trunk side only, i'm not sure. They are selling T1s to small biz. Probably reselling BellSouth access.

Also, what do you think about a small, relatively unknown soft switch co. in atlanta called Verso, VRSO on Nasdaq? I have some of their stock.

Also, what is the meaning of Don Hallacy, ex-Sprint and ex-CEO of Verso, the softswitch company, just joining BellSouth as an officer level exec in IT??? Can IT run the public network if it's packet rather than circuit?

Comments?
BarBQueKid 12/4/2012 | 10:49:45 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus whoa slow down there cookie monster! I've been called a number of things but never clueless.

You are right, I do believe the business is Nortel, Lucent and Siemens to loose. The only one of the 3 that are executing is Nortel. They announced 2 deals, 1 with Qwest local and 1 with Sprint local for over $1B. Now do I think they can deliver and will they ultimately be successful. I'm not sure, jury's still out.

In the next gen local side I really like Telica and Santera. Both are serving CLEC Line side applications both in the US and Internationally and have intergrated with NGDLC's using GR303/TR08. Not just in a lab, but in live networks.

I have not heard that Sonus has gotten GR303 or TR08 done. Have they?

flanker 12/4/2012 | 10:49:45 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus In the next gen local side I really like Telica and Santera. Both are serving CLEC Line side applications both in the US and Internationally and have intergrated with NGDLC's using GR303/TR08. Not just in a lab, but in live networks.

BBQ, you have raised some interesting points that I hesitate to challenge, but at the risk of sounding foolish, is Telica actually outselling Sonus in terms of quarterly revenues?

You mention that the line side is where the growth is, but what about the conversion by a lot of carriers (ATT, Cable & Wireless) to global voice over packet? I'm not sure the LEC market is any stronger than the LD side. Minutes growth on the LD side is pretty strong, and that were you see Sonus (and carriers like IBASIS) doing their business.









easycookie 12/4/2012 | 10:49:45 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus ...And whether you like ir or not Sonus doesn't have a presence in the line side of the market. The ILECs own that market with over 90% share and if Cisco wants a piece they have to crack the line side access code.


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

You seem quiet clueless - according to your criterion the only guys with "line-side" presence are LU/Nortel/ALA/Siemens - they are the only ones with Class 5 5ESS/DMS/EWSD etc.

As far as next-gen class 5 goes SOnus has as good a story as anyone else - really how many of the guys mentioned above are going to cannibalize their own markets of traditional class 5?
BarBQueKid 12/4/2012 | 10:49:46 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Sorry, it's what I get for multi-tasking.

My point is that Sonus does not have a presence in the line side of the ILECs network, the lion share of the revenue opportunity.

It is also questionable whether they are a strategic vendor to the two ILECs they have, Bell South and Qwest. In both cases the are not serving line side applications but are doing trunking, both seem to be tactical plays. At Verizon and SBC, Telica and Santera seem to be the winning the mindshare of the decision makers.

So I'm not really sure what Sonus really buys Cisco other than a flat and declining revenue stream.
Route495 12/4/2012 | 10:49:49 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus
They better start making some acquisitions soon. This article paints a pretty bleak picture

http://news.com.com/2009-1033-...
optical_man 12/4/2012 | 10:49:50 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Author: BarBQueKid Number: 6
Subject: Cisco and Line Side vs Trunkside Date: 3/7/2002 7:02:54 PM
...And whether you like ir or not Sonus doesn't have a presence in the line side of the market. The ILECs own that market with over 90% share and if Cisco wants a piece they have to crack the line side access code.

BBQ,
I'm confused by your statement. Can you clarify? You say Sonus doesn't have a line side presence. OK, I'll buy that. Then you say the ILEC's (sonus' customers) 'own that market with over 90% share'. Are you saying the ILEC's are manufacturing gear for the line side?
Am confused by the point you are trying to make.
Please clarify.

BarBQueKid 12/4/2012 | 10:49:51 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus I live in this space and agree with the comment that just buying Sonus isn't enough. They will need an application server and media server to make it all work. Gre

However, the market is moving to line side VoIP, look at the IP Centrex/Hosted PBX RFI/RFP's on the street. Clarent and Sonus are trunk side plays. If Cisco picked up Sonus they still would not of solved the line side issue. The Sonus ASX, their line side softswitch, is a looser. And whether you like ir or not Sonus doesn't have a presence in the line side of the market. The ILECs own that market with over 90% share and if Cisco wants a piece they have to crack the line side access code.
saxophone 12/4/2012 | 10:49:53 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Wilson's confusion is understandable. Lots of people (esp. wall st. analysts who didn't fully grok the circa '90s PSTN) confused Sonus with Castle (now part of Unisphere) which made it's name in Internet Offload... branded service mediation.

Still, he should be more accurate with offhand comments.
flanker 12/4/2012 | 10:49:53 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus If Cisco bought Clarent and Sonus, that might be something of a home run in voice. But I dont think the powers that be could stand to see Clarent's VOIP gateway marketed side by side with Cisco's 5xxx and 7xxx routers.

Sonus doesn't have that image problem because its not a router configured to carry voice. It's a switch configured to trunk over IP.
adobe2 12/4/2012 | 10:49:55 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus It makes more sense for Cisco to do that, and follow up with few more aquisitions to cover all the VOIP services with:
-VOIP Gateway (Sonus has that to compliment Cisco)

-SoftSwitch (Sonus has that)
The more aquisitions would be:
-Application Server (there are bunch of vendors such as Dynamic Soft with good Sip stack.
-Media Server (vendors like Snowshore, Ipunity)
flanker 12/4/2012 | 10:49:56 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Sonus is going after the Internet offload market, and that market has pretty much peaked already. It's also unclear if they'll offer class-4 or class-5 replacement." Wilson said Cisco is more likely to be interested in a smaller, private company.

Wilson should check his facts.

Sonus class 4 and class 5 functionality is contained in the softswitch components, which Sonus manufactures. Cisco doesnt have well-integrated softswitch intelligence for its routers, which would explain why Cisco is looking at Sonus. Cisco wiould also love to get its hands on Sonus' customer base.



watchtower 12/4/2012 | 10:49:59 PM
re: Cisco Eyeing Sonus Didn't Cisco cancel their equilivant of an Internet offload box?
HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE