x
Optical/IP

Guide to Ethernet Standards Published

A reference work for the developers of Ethernet services has just been published by Light Reading in the form of a report entitled Standardizing Ethernet Services.

The report, authored by Heavy Reading chief analyst Scott Clavenna, maps out the standardization work that promises to drive the rollout of a slew of new Ethernet-based services -- ones that could become successors of today's Frame Relay, ATM, and leased-line services in the long run.

Clavenna says that standardization has become a crucial issue now that incumbent carriers are taking a serious look at Ethernet services. They're seeing a lot of interest from enterprise users but aren't prepared to charge ahead with full-scale deployments until standards have been established in two areas.

One of these areas concerns the services themselves. Carriers need them to be defined in terms that their sales staff and customers are familiar with, so they can compare offerings from different carriers and also compare them with legacy offerings such as Frame Relay.

The other area concerns the ways in which the services will be provided, which is much more complex than might first appear. This is because Ethernet services can be provided over all sorts of infrastructure, including next-generation Sonet/SDH, various flavors of IP/MPLS, and pure Ethernet over dark fiber or wavelengths. Each combination of protocols needs standardization, the report says.

And that's just for starters. There's also a host of other standards under development to make Ethernet "carrier class" -- notably by adding operations, administration, and maintenance (OAM) functions to basic Ethernet technology. On top of that, Ethernet itself is being enhanced with 802.1ad Provider Bridges, 802.1w Fast Spanning Tree, 802.3ad Link Aggregation, 802.3ah Ethernet in the First Mile, and 802.17 Resilient Packet Ring Technology developments.

Clavenna's report takes the reader through all of these standardization efforts, step by step, in a way that puts into context the considerable amount of work going into defining tomorrow's telecom services.

Click on this link to read the report.

— Peter Heywood, Founding Editor, Light Reading


Archives of Related Light Reading Webinars:

technonerd 12/5/2012 | 2:42:43 AM
re: Guide to Ethernet Standards Published Gotta love this one. They couldn't say in the "last mile," because it might clue people into the reality that there's nothing new. And they endorsed QAM-based PHYs, which also are nothing new. This stuff has been around for quite a long time. Not that anyone will ever write about it, because then they might have to ask why these technologies weren't used in the late 1990s.

If they had been, the entire history of the Internet bubble would have been very different. Alas, the VC/Wall Street financiers never would have let it happen, because their game wasn't about technology that works, services that serve or companies that make money.

And now we shall turn to "VoIP" ...
materialgirl 12/5/2012 | 2:42:31 AM
re: Guide to Ethernet Standards Published There they go again, trying to "add value" to the transport commodity. By the time carriers mess up Ethernet by making it "carrier class", no one will want it. As David I. says "Just deliver the bits stupid".

Users already own and manage Ethernet networks. They are not the ones who are confused.
technonerd 12/5/2012 | 2:42:29 AM
re: Guide to Ethernet Standards Published As David I. says "Just deliver the bits stupid"
Problem with Isenberg is that he's been so consistently wrong since he wrote that one paper that you really ought to look back and ask yourself whether it, too, might have been wrong.
materialgirl 12/5/2012 | 2:42:28 AM
re: Guide to Ethernet Standards Published Re: David I.: what is wrong with his original paper?
technonerd 12/5/2012 | 2:42:27 AM
re: Guide to Ethernet Standards Published Re: David I.: what is wrong with his original paper?
Did you actually read what I wrote? If so, can I suggest re-reading it? Thanks.
HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE