<<   <   Page 2 / 5   >   >>
duwenhua 12/5/2012 | 5:32:24 PM
re: Alcatel-Lucent, Juniper Get Core-Router Upgrades

Add some&nbsp;comments to&nbsp;&nbsp; Soupafly:

Actually Huawei NE5K is the number 1&nbsp;at density until today. It has released 200G&nbsp;line card&nbsp;one year ago,&nbsp;it is &nbsp;ready to ship 200G LPU to customer today.

NE5K has 16 slots, 200G*16slot=3.2T.&nbsp;

CRS-3 is 140G*16slot = 2.24Tbps

T4000 is 240G*8slot =1.92T

All the other vendors are working on new LPUs which are 400G+.&nbsp; So, who will be the really number one to provide really product to customer?&nbsp; Just wait.



The NE5K may not have the feature density but it kills all of them for power, clustering capability and I believe space. Or at least it did....

DCITDave 12/5/2012 | 5:32:22 PM
re: Alcatel-Lucent, Juniper Get Core-Router Upgrades

I'd love to see Alcatel-Lucent weigh in here. There are three pretty good points raised here by uguess that could stand to be addressed.

yarn 12/5/2012 | 5:32:22 PM
re: Alcatel-Lucent, Juniper Get Core-Router Upgrades

Indeed, kudos to their team. Impressive!

My guess on the 5x capacity is based on the XRS offering 5x more 100G ports per rack then the CRS-3/T4000 do. System capacity is a bit misleading here as Cisco's 16 x 140G effectively becomes only 16 x 100G, ie 1.6 Tb/s. Not sure about the 66% higher efficiency either, but I can easily see how one rack of gear only needs one third of the power of the equivalent 5 (6 really for multi-chassis) racks of lower density CSCO/JNPR gear it'd take otherwise. You'd think it'd be even less.

In the datasheet I saw all the typical core routing and switching features you'd want but nothing about "complex edge capabilities". Did I miss anything?


Pete Baldwin 12/5/2012 | 5:32:22 PM
re: Alcatel-Lucent, Juniper Get Core-Router Upgrades

Hi Flook -- No insult taken; you and Soupafly had some really good points.

Soupafly 12/5/2012 | 5:32:21 PM
re: Alcatel-Lucent, Juniper Get Core-Router Upgrades

@ yarn; I strongly suspect fella that Basil &amp; Lyndsey know full well that allot of their claims are going to be partly theoretical.

Which means; Power: In a optimised port utilisation and density deployment with certain features/services activated the cost per bit is 66% better than a sub-optimal competing platform based on a legacy system base.

Density: See above.

Why theoretical? Because, the chances of a customer using that exact config &amp; service mix are low, at best.

Its interesting because Basil also states that this is a key enabler for a new super-core architecture which he believes will emerge that will blend the metro networks with the core. (Cloud computing &amp; Data-centre HPC will imho, fuel this trend, so I can understand his thinking.)

Yet, looking at the datasheet makes no mention (as yarn said) of any service edge type feature depth.

I agree btw completely with the spirit of the board. The innovations in silicon that A-L team have delivered are exceptional &amp; worthy of acclaim. Right now they are clearly leading the field in 3D FPGA capabilities. (3D = density, dexterity, delivery)






Alex_Fduch 12/5/2012 | 5:32:20 PM
re: Alcatel-Lucent, Juniper Get Core-Router Upgrades


4x100GE card for 7950 XRS is shipped from Q3'2012.

4x100GE for 7750 SR will be available next year.

Pete Baldwin 12/5/2012 | 5:32:20 PM
re: Alcatel-Lucent, Juniper Get Core-Router Upgrades

uguess -- IIRC, the 4x100GE card ships next year.

EDIT: I am not correct; see the next message. Thanks Alex.

lindsay_newell 12/5/2012 | 5:32:19 PM
re: Alcatel-Lucent, Juniper Get Core-Router Upgrades

yarn is on the right track:

core networks are moving rapidly from 10G to 100G, so how many 100GE ports can be supported in a rack is going to be an important criteria.

7950 XRS-20 is 80 ports (20 slots, 400G FD per slot)

CRS-3 is 16 ports (16 ports, 140G FD per slot)

so the difference is 5X

Building a 16Tb/s node (160 x 100GE ports) is another comparison.

7950 XRS-40 is two 19" racks and 160 x 100GE ports (no multi-chassis required).

CRS-3 needs multi-chassis with at least two fabrics&nbsp;and ten CRS-3s (16x100GE each) - that's at least twelve 23" racks. It may be more -&nbsp;I don't think any carriers have ever deployed a multi-chassis system this big.

The difference is more than 5X and it should be obvious that the power saving is going to be at least 66%.

In response to the other comment "uguess" made about network processors, the 7950 XRS uses Alcatel-Lucent's 400G FP3 network processor that is also used in the 7750 SR. I'm not sure what you mean by a "programmable forwarding ASIC", but it's not a network processor. As far as keeping up with capacity growth for the terabit era,&nbsp;7950 XRS core router has market-leading 100G density, it's the first and only&nbsp;core router that is ready for 400G clear-channel (the 400G linecards use a single 400G NPU, not n x 100G silicon with all the complexity of muxing, multiple memories and packet ordering) and&nbsp;we think that leadership is sustainable beyond 400G.

Lindsay Newell

VP Product Marketing, Alcatel-Lucent

Alex_Fduch 12/5/2012 | 5:32:19 PM
re: Alcatel-Lucent, Juniper Get Core-Router Upgrades

One more.

It was not very clearly said,&nbsp; but 66% less power means 66% less per gigabit.

Hence full 7950 XRS-20 is expected to consume roughly 1.67 times more than full Juniper T4000.

uguess 12/5/2012 | 5:32:18 PM
re: Alcatel-Lucent, Juniper Get Core-Router Upgrades



Great to have someone from ALU IPD to enlighten us here. :-)

Agreed on the comparison with CRS. &nbsp;Good pick by the way. &nbsp;But it is not compared to the industry's best.

If future 400GE or 1000GE is chosen, some current platforms probably could not deliver, than 5 becomes infinite. :-)

I have limited knowledge about network processors in general, so please elaborate a little bit on the differences of a programmable ASIC and a network processor? Is FP3 an ASIC?

Having 400GE clear channel is great, although it is probably not critical at the moment while the industry is starting to deploy 100GE. &nbsp;There is no doubt that ALU's chipset development is leading edge. &nbsp; What I am not sure about is whether the same chipset architecture can go beyond 400G to 1T without significant changes. &nbsp;Also system capabilities depend on the total package, not just forwarding chip, e.g., SDRAM, TCAM, etc. , so it seems not practical to always claim edge-like capabilites as capacity grows exponentially. &nbsp;Again, what are the new capabilities, and are they required?&nbsp;

Another point is that core router is not only about hardware capabilities, flexible scalable, and reliable software is key too.

Time will tell whether XRS will be successful. &nbsp;But as always, kudos to innovations. &nbsp; &nbsp;

<<   <   Page 2 / 5   >   >>
Sign In