Cisco, Sycamore Circling Lucent's ATM

ivehadit 12/4/2012 | 9:27:59 PM

re: Cisco, Sycamore Circling Lucent's ATM supplyside says,
All the good people have long since left Lucent.

these egotistical statements appear with amazing regularity whenever it comes to anything atm, and even otherwise. is it just the cascade ex-lucent employees stuck in their glory days? or simply a good stick to beat lucent with by those that left. how do they know who's good or not?

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

routerboy 12/4/2012 | 9:27:58 PM

re: Cisco, Sycamore Circling Lucent's ATM No one ever said that Cisco belonged in the Telco market. They should stick to WAN stuff as that is what there good at.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

routerboy 12/4/2012 | 9:27:58 PM

re: Cisco, Sycamore Circling Lucent's ATM No one ever said that Cisco belonged in the Telco market. They should stick to WAN stuff as that is what there good at.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

netskeptic 12/4/2012 | 9:27:56 PM

re: Cisco, Sycamore Circling Lucent's ATM > The insane goal of supporting voice over ATM by
> 53 bytes cell is smart. In case, you did not
> know voice still represent the largest piece of
> revenue for service provider.. And, 60% of
> media gateways sold to service provider are
> Voice over ATM media gateway..

Do they use a 1 call per 1 VC mapping ? I highly doubt this and if there is no such mapping there is no need in 48 byte payload.

Thanks,

Netskeptic

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

skeptic 12/4/2012 | 9:27:56 PM

re: Cisco, Sycamore Circling Lucent's ATM Let me ask a question: What application is sending 40byte packets over an OC-192c interface?

Perhaps if you used valid frame sizes (greater or = to 64bytes) you would see different results?
-------------------------
For better or worse, most testing these days
goes down to 40 byte packets. And you can
have TCP acks over POS that are way less than
64 bytes.

That they fall off 33% at 41 bytes is a sign
of real problems. But the question as to how
serious the problems are depends on at what
byte size they recover to 100% of line rate.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

pump up the volume 12/4/2012 | 9:27:55 PM

re: Cisco, Sycamore Circling Lucent's ATM supplyside says,
All the good people have long since left Lucent.

these egotistical statements appear with amazing regularity whenever it comes to anything atm, and even otherwise. is it just the cascade ex-lucent employees stuck in their glory days? or simply a good stick to beat lucent with by those that left. how do they know who's good or not?

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

As a former supplier I can say that calling on Lucent became an exercise in futility. The Bell heads were scientists who could never execute on a program to deliver a working product. The Ascend/Cascade engineers who developed products mostly left to other startups. There are a handful of engineers left who can build a product but they're swamped by those who need strong direction from management to execute. That is sadly lacking today inside Lucent.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

maryhadalambda 12/4/2012 | 9:27:54 PM

re: Cisco, Sycamore Circling Lucent's ATM Pat Russo's hair is so big, no one can see past it.

If you read this, sorry for wasting your time

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

futureisbright 12/4/2012 | 9:27:53 PM

re: Cisco, Sycamore Circling Lucent's ATM It is easy to understand why LU is selling, but why would anyone buy it? are there any long term business benefits, aside from short term market gains?

The current state of the ATM market:
- Newbridge/Alcatel is losing share in all markets; no new products; declining support; bone/bell headed management are all contributing.

- Lucent's share has also been declining

- Nortel has a preponderant rising share globally from a still decent product line, with still decent support.

Should LU sell they will have decided that they are not in a position to reverse the long term decline in market share and revenues.

Should CSCO buy, they would be shoring up a decent but second rank market share, and will end up with two product lines servicing the same market. They would gain access to customers.

Don't know what margins LU is making in ATM, but with an average of 17%, it cannot be up to CSCO's lofty standards.

Clearly, a merger would not happen without further market share leakage, and the deep sixing of the weaker product line.

And for Sycamore? A trip down memory lane?

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

ccdeas 12/4/2012 | 9:27:52 PM

re: Cisco, Sycamore Circling Lucent's ATM I think Cisco would be willing to do it to get the in with the RBOCs. They'd be eliminating a competitor and further establishing relationships with the RBOCs -- which can only mean more business down the road. AT $200-600M, it's a bargain.

Don't underestimate the value of the RBOCs as a customer. 17% may seem piddly, but if it gets the carriers to buy more of your products than just ATM, it's probably worth it.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

lucifer 12/4/2012 | 9:27:52 PM

re: Cisco, Sycamore Circling Lucent's ATM > The insane goal of supporting voice over ATM by
> 53 bytes cell is smart. In case, you did not
> know voice still represent the largest piece of
> revenue for service provider.. And, 60% of
> media gateways sold to service provider are
> Voice over ATM media gateway..

Do they use a 1 call per 1 VC mapping ? I highly doubt this and if there is no such mapping there is no need in 48 byte payload.

Actually, yes! Most VoATM in the US is AAL1-based, easier mapping of call management software. Don't forget also that at low speeds, T1, n x 64K, you need small cell/frame size to reduce jitter and latency.

There's a story (probably based in fact) that when B-ISDN (which is now known as ATM) was being standarized that there was an impasse between the voice faction who wanted 32 byte cells and the data faction who wanter 64 bytes. Compromise 53 bytes, 48 byte payload!

This has nothing to do with Lucent selling their ATM portfolio!!!

My opinion here is that what any vendor is buying is Lucent's market footprint. All of the products are under-invested and moribund. Lucent took a great company, Ascend, and ran it into the ground.

Lucifer Lightbearer

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD