<<   <   Page 5 / 10   >   >>
euler 12/5/2012 | 1:39:56 AM
re: Axiowave Queues in the Core Tenor managed to build a box that was supposed to facilitate the converged network model (voice and data together) and turn ATM into a thing of the past. Tenor's story was over-subscription instead of over-provision based on an physical output-buffered distributed memory architecture.
It achieved the goal of predictable latencies with some patented technology which ETS now owns.
breathdeep 12/5/2012 | 1:39:53 AM
re: Axiowave Queues in the Core You must be a manager, with so much time on
your hands to write useless blabber.

Start earning your pay after 35 years.
breathdeep 12/5/2012 | 1:39:52 AM
re: Axiowave Queues in the Core
"Mr. Chatter invested because he could."

Yes he has the money, and will make more
when he screws another comapany.

When the scam works the first time, why not try
it again and trap another sucker company.
silent mariner 12/5/2012 | 1:39:52 AM
re: Axiowave Queues in the Core Mr. Chatter invested because he could.

The preferred investors have a 1:1 deal versus common stock.

Technology is interesting enough to have sales in more than one place.

Instead of being repetitively negative, perhaps a more positive view of where this company is versus the likes of Tenor, Equipe, coriolis, cetacean, Gotham, Appian, Cereva, Crescent, Storigen, Tiburon, et al, is in order. It seems highly unlikely that the company would have assed 40-60 people to the payroll in the last 6 months if business does not exist.
Bush sucks 12/5/2012 | 1:39:50 AM
re: Axiowave Queues in the Core Well, the problem with Tenor was multi-fold.

1. They did not want to go against Cisco and Juniper and positioned themselves as a pure MPLS box and told carriers that they needed to buy a separate router also. Basically, they wanted to convey the impression that they were not competing against router vendors. Obviously, that did not fly, especially during the bust. They realized their mistake too late and by the time they started developing BGP, it was hasta la vista, baby ...

2. Their architecture could scale only to 12 OC-192s and so they could not sell it as a next-gen core anything. For Pete's sake, even Cisco had 12416 which could support 14 OC-192s. That implied they needed to position themselves at the edge but they did not have a lot of edge functionalities.
realworldguy 12/5/2012 | 1:39:50 AM
re: Axiowave Queues in the Core The problem lies in the way best-effort IP services are provided and delivered today compared to ATM and FR services. While ATM offers service characteristics and service performance suitable for different applications based on their nature and charges accordingly, IP services have been plain vanilla connectivity services. Right there, you can see why ATM makes money while operating efficiently. Being from a service provider environment myself I can tell you that if I can get my IP network to mimic my ATM network as far as service differentiation is concerned I can offer a lot more services with my IP network than I am doing now and do it more economically and efficiently. I believe it requires a monumental shift in the way IP providers think. But the first leap is the hardest to take.
If Axiowave can do what they claim it would be interesting to see what comes out of Aleron's announcement of ATM-like IP SLAs. I dont quite buy that overprovisioning is the cheaper option. The key would be to make the network easier to manage. You saved port costs and you dont have to lose sleep over the network. Why would it be more expensive than throwing bandwidth onto the network.
carrierguy 12/5/2012 | 1:39:47 AM
re: Axiowave Queues in the Core arch_1

You mention that "provisioning and terminating bandwidth has been cheaper than the scheduling needed to properly provide quality in the core" I am not sure this is true. You refer to "fiber glut" - well the glut is in fiber, not in usable IP capacity. A Cisco/Juniper OC-192 card is over US$220,000 list price. How is that cheaper than "properly providing quality in the core"? It is being done in ATM networks so there is an existence proof. What remains to be seen is, are there IP platforms that can do that?

Your second point about "a competitor will simply build a cheaper network using overprovisioning" to compete with carriers with multiple service models is also not true IMHO. Long term, your carrier will go bankrupt. Witness C&W, XO, Allegiance .. the list goes on. Name one IP carrier who is generating positive cash flow using your "over-provisioning" model. Even Level3 is forced to buy software companies so that they don't violate their revenue covenants.

Do you really mean it when you say that "concept of a premium service exists in the minds of marketing people"? I assume you are aware of Frame Relay and ATM services that charge anywhere from 50% to 100% more than your basic transit IP service. Carriers need to move away from your "high-quality cheap service" to stop bleeding and become sustainable businesses.
Tony Li 12/5/2012 | 1:39:43 AM
re: Axiowave Queues in the Core

Have you tested an 8812 yet?

whyiswhy 12/5/2012 | 1:39:42 AM
re: Axiowave Queues in the Core indiana:

Dude, do you understand their business proposition, their theory of the game, if you like? It's sell hardware. And you don't need to be an employee to understand that it is proprietary.

Do you understand the hardware business climate out there for small companies? Nobody will buy their shix, not without a pile of warrants, and then only if the price is one dollar. Literally.

As to the price of bandwidth, I refer you to: http://www.bandwidthmarket.com... or to http://www.telegeography.com/

Bandwidth is cheap.

That's why your post got a "one"...and not by me.

opinion 12/5/2012 | 1:39:40 AM
re: Axiowave Queues in the Core Well if ANY carrier hasn't forseen the NEED than they will be shamlessly left in the dust and lose the game as the PTP users continue to consume endless amounts of bandwidth and the nerds who have no finanical responsibility continue to advise the idealistic practise that bandwidth is free and over provisioning is the answer. It's not RIGHT provvisioning, it's STUPID provisionsing. Voice, Video and premimum services for business need to coexist on the same network to be profitable and all carriers NEED to get with the program. There is an ROI at the end of the tunnel and Axiowave certainly isn't the only box that can aceheive it. Cisco can't, Juniper can modeslty do so but plenty of others can.
<<   <   Page 5 / 10   >   >>
Sign In