& cplSiteName &
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View        ADD A COMMENT
<<   <   Page 4 / 13   >   >>
russ4br
russ4br
12/4/2012 | 10:32:40 PM
re: Juniper Goes Terabit With the T640
- The T640 is a forklift upgrade ... there's no backward compatibility with M160 line cards, even. Which means carriers, like they did with the M40 to M160 transition, need to go through the pain of completely replacing what they've got and writing down their investments in Juniper.

This is not correct ...

According to the product datasheet, it seems that there are support on the T640 to both T-series line cards and the so-called "FPC-2" (uh?!) M-series cards. So it seems that at least some of the M-series line cards can be used on the T640.

- russ
TeraTerror
TeraTerror
12/4/2012 | 10:32:38 PM
re: Juniper Goes Terabit With the T640
Teraterror is right. I was with Yotta Networks until they laid me off last month. Yotta has a box that can interconnect multiple IP routers into one monolithic like machine without using up the revenue generating ports. They are also using the same platform to interconnect multiple bays of cross-connect to develop a scalable cross-connect. They have a good technology and good people, what they lack is good PR and marketing. They shouldn't be keeping their stuff still a secret. The CEO was a university professor, still he thinks all that matters is technology. In business, technology alone cannot win, you need marketing, marketing, marketing!!!
PhotonGolf
PhotonGolf
12/4/2012 | 10:32:35 PM
re: Juniper Goes Terabit With the T640

But ... I suspect the laid off marketing and sales guy says he can't sell or market a product that doesn't meet the threshhold functionality ... or when the customers are only deploying legacy ... or when the ROI just isn't there.

Just my guess that there are always two perspectives!
light-headed
light-headed
12/4/2012 | 10:32:34 PM
re: Juniper Goes Terabit With the T640
It possibly means very good things for startups. Consider:

- The T640 is a forklift upgrade ...

not totally accurate, the older routers move to the edge of the core, metro core or do services, etc. i am not a juniper person but this is the same thing cisco has done many times (AGS, 7000, 7500, GSR, GSR+)

- The T640 is built on Juniper's JunOS

this is a GOOD thing... especially when it is JUNOS. also see above... if you have lots of different size routers it is nice to have them on the same OS as much as possible. don't get carried away with central vs. distributed unless you are an experiences OS developer and really understand what you are talking about... otherwise it is just FUD.

- It means Juniper can no longer hide behind the curtain of "the industry doesn't need scalable capacity". Juniper staking down

i have never seen any router vendor say this and i would consider them foolish if they did... plus everyone knew juniper was working on this for the last year or more.
skeptic
skeptic
12/4/2012 | 10:32:33 PM
re: Juniper Goes Terabit With the T640
The "no fork lift upgrade" looks more like the hype from some of the startups attempting to differentiate from Cisco/Juniper. Am I wrong here ??
---------------

No, its an important issue in some places.
In some providers, its a whole lots easier
to put in a new card than it is to arrange
for a chassis to be removed and replaced.

It seems simple to talk about re-using equipment
or moving routers around. But in an operation
of considerable size, its never that simple.
raid
raid
12/4/2012 | 10:32:33 PM
re: Juniper Goes Terabit With the T640
- The T640 is a forklift upgrade ...

not totally accurate, the older routers move to the edge of the
core, metro core or do services, etc. i am not a juniper person but
this is the same thing cisco has done many times (AGS, 7000,
7500, GSR, GSR+)

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

You could even leave the old router in and add the new router if you have the shelf-space :-)

Considering that backplane technology and port density improved 4x between the two generations, why even attempt to add line cards into old backplane.

The only thing that seems important to me is the non-disruptive, upgrade of the network. Seems like you could do this if you can bring up the new router before bringing down the new one.

The "no fork lift upgrade" looks more like the hype from some of the startups attempting to differentiate from Cisco/Juniper. Am I wrong here ??

-raid



rjmcmahon
rjmcmahon
12/4/2012 | 10:32:32 PM
re: Juniper Goes Terabit With the T640
The "no fork lift upgrade" looks more like the hype
_______________

Think of it as "strategic sheet metal".

This begs the question if carriers desire cheap technology why don't they get together and define the sheet metal, including the backplane interconnects, such that third party providers can compete with blades - analagous to the PC industry and their third party adapter cards?
skeptic
skeptic
12/4/2012 | 10:32:30 PM
re: Juniper Goes Terabit With the T640
This begs the question if carriers desire cheap technology why don't they get together and define the sheet metal, including the backplane interconnects, such that third party providers can compete with blades - analagous to the PC industry and their third party adapter cards?
--------------

Because the backplanes, interconnects and
switches are part of where these vendors compete.
If you try to mandate a single solution to those
problems, the carriers will end up being locked
into an architecture that is not likely to be
very good. The interesting design tradeoffs
are usually not in the framer or the IP ASICs.

Or worse yet, they will end up with the PC model
where a two companies (intel and microsoft)
end up dictating almost everything and the
"PC industry" consists of a bunch of companies
doing assembly of pieces they have little control
over while most of the money made funnels back
to the two companies.

The question I guess is who gets to be the
microsoft and intel of routers.....and who gets
left to do the low-margin pieces.

null0
null0
12/4/2012 | 10:32:29 PM
re: Juniper Goes Terabit With the T640
This is not correct ...

According to the product datasheet, it seems that there are support on the T640 to both T-series line cards and the so-called "FPC-2" (uh?!) M-series cards. So it seems that at least some of the M-series line cards can be used on the T640.
--------------------------


You're correct about some of the M-Series PICs being supported the problem is that they are the lower speed interfaces. The OC192 is not supported and at ~$250K a go that is a lot of expensive Dilythium Crystals that need to find a new home.

Who will want to buy a different FPC that will only support the legacy PICs. Juniper claims that this will offer investment protection and smooth migration. How is this investment protection if, with legacy OC48 PICs, itGÇÖs only possible for you to use a -+ of the capacity that you have just invested in? Seems to me like an extreme waste.

They are using a 16x16 crossbar so the reordering problem for OC192 ports should have gone away, however when they finally release their OC768 they are going to have to implement some form of src/dst hash algorithm on a per flow basis in order to maintain packet order. This is fine in the real world where there are typically, millions of individual flows at the core of a network but it will be exposed in a lab environment.

Juniper has a slight advantage, call it 15 love, but this is far from the quantum leap in terms of TTM that the M160 enjoyed. In a market that is looking for investment protection this product will be tested like no other especially after the reordering problem of old. With major carriers ISP's etc cutting back on their capex and now probably not planning to upgrade until 2003, there will be something a lot more interesting on the table by then?
rjmcmahon
rjmcmahon
12/4/2012 | 10:32:29 PM
re: Juniper Goes Terabit With the T640
The question I guess is who gets to be the
microsoft and intel of routers
_____________

Does this analogy apply?

Intel held their advantage because they were the only ones to build enough capacity which met the demands for uprocessors. MSFT held their advantage because they took control over the clone distributors.

A better starting analogy may be rack mount servers running unix. The volumes seem similar. The need to provide revenue generating applications for the networks seems similar.

Things could get particularly interesting if the carriers and RBOCs supported an open source code base allowing anybody to compete on an even playing field. The RBOCs would need to standardize the backplane for sure, as standardizing on the copper loop is preventing all progress. (Both of these groups would still need to downsize signficantly if they are to be a viable bit distributor.)

The current model of looking to only system vendors which have the funds for things like OSMINE as well as have the resource to flush out all the software bugs before deployment precludes all startups from enterring this market. No startups, no competition in my mind.
<<   <   Page 4 / 13   >   >>


Featured Video
Upcoming Live Events
October 22, 2019, Los Angeles, CA
November 5, 2019, London, England
November 7, 2019, London, UK
November 14, 2019, Maritim Hotel, Berlin
December 3-5, 2019, Vienna, Austria
December 3, 2019, New York, New York
March 16-18, 2020, Embassy Suites, Denver, Colorado
May 18-20, 2020, Irving Convention Center, Dallas, TX
All Upcoming Live Events
Partner Perspectives - content from our sponsors
Sports Venues: Where 5G Brings a Truly Immersive Experience
By Peter Linder, 5G Evangelist, North America, Ericsson
Multiband Microwave Provides High Capacity & High Reliability for 5G Transport
By Don Frey, Principal Analyst, Transport & Routing, Ovum
All Partner Perspectives