& cplSiteName &
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View        ADD A COMMENT
<<   <   Page 2 / 13   >   >>
RouteThis
RouteThis
12/4/2012 | 10:32:50 PM
re: Juniper Goes Terabit With the T640
T640 is also 780 mm deep whereas the spec. for an RBOC would require this to be sub 600 mm. This "Gibson" box will look like a Sumo wrestler in a tutu.

(Someone mentioned ISPs and CLECs....are any of the ones actually big enough to buy a T640 making money - I think not. Therefore - not meeting the RBOC CO standards is relevant [they still have cash - lot's of it compared to ISPs/CLECs])

Critical comments of this platform aside (Juniper does make great routers/SW) - we do seem to be reaching a threshold for how much functionality a vendor can jam into one standard 7ft x 23 (or 19) inch rack....

Port density is also currently reaching what appears to be a ceiling - not based on how small we make the interfaces/connectors (because that can always be improved upon) but by simple human factors.

A CO tech with big fingers can only get those big paws into a fixed amount of space. If you have box that supports say 500 OC3s in one rack with tiny (non-SC) connectors - how is he supposed to get his fingers into there to change an interface or remove a phy module without major diffuculty or taking someone else out of service?

Does anyone out there know of new developments to alleviate and/or solve these problems? You can used channelized interfaces or patch/breakout panels, but that only helps so much. When we're talking high interface density (and general rack density/dimensions/power) it appears that vendors have their work cut out for them.

Any thoughts?


-RT
packaging-man
packaging-man
12/4/2012 | 10:32:50 PM
re: Juniper Goes Terabit With the T640
Read the data sheet a bit closer. There are two inputer per power module, two power modules total. Each input is rated at 68 Amps, which means 136 Amps total rating per power module.

They probably seperated their power inputs in two to satisfy RBOC concerns over bringing huge wire to the device, splitting the power up like thins means the RBOCs don't need to run a special 2 AWG line to the box. But the box is definately redundant from a power standpoint.

To answer the question about CLECs and ISPs, I think you said it all yourself. CLECs by there very nature (and name) lease space (and power!) from RBOCs. As far as the ISPs go, I don't think any on them will be buying 32 ports of 10 Gig in a single chassis anytime soon! Besides, it is a moot point, neither CLECs nor ISPs have any money to buy anything (if they are lucky enought to still be in business).
sgamble
sgamble
12/4/2012 | 10:32:48 PM
re: Juniper Goes Terabit With the T640
Why would Cisco buy Juniper for so-called "terabit" functionality when Cisco has been working on the "HFR" for sometime? What am I missing?


sg.
Edge0fSpace
Edge0fSpace
12/4/2012 | 10:32:48 PM
re: Juniper Goes Terabit With the T640
Skeptic,
Big admirer of your posts! Always asking the interesting questions, and I think you just proved you don't work for Juniper. They will be scaling the box via Backplane/Switchfabric interconnects. (I am not sure which) This allows you to run multiple interconnects at lower speeds via some sort of hub rack or cards. For this to be the least bit cost effective (for the vendor) it has to utilize existing ASICs/Hardware. Probably the most difficult issue will be the management of resources once you start tying the boxes together.
Also, I have heard they still have packet reordering issues. But, I am not privy to the circumstances under which they occur or whether it is likely to occur under realistic conditions. (Of course, how do you define "realistic" for a box that is supposed to be viable for 4-6 years.)

E0S
MP_UK
MP_UK
12/4/2012 | 10:32:47 PM
re: Juniper Goes Terabit With the T640
So let me get this straight, by linking the backplanes of several 320 Gbps routers, it somehow means the T640 is a terrabit router? Not sure I'm buying into this, I suppose it depends on architecture. If the link between units basically increases the number of interfaces that can be supported (at wire rate,) by one routing / forwarding engine to over 1 Tbps, then I would class that as a terrabit router; if the link is just some kind of non-standardised interface between two separate routers then I would not.
Any thoughts...?
Holy Grail
Holy Grail
12/4/2012 | 10:32:47 PM
re: Juniper Goes Terabit With the T640

sgamble wrote:-
Why would Cisco buy Juniper for so-called "terabit" functionality when Cisco has been working on the "HFR" for sometime? What am I missing?

Because even with the HFR their is a strong need in the market for a solid company able to be a second source for Cisco, the only candidate for this right now is Juniper, their stock is in the ditch partly due to the general environment, partly due to packet re-ordering and partly due to Cisco coming out with a decent core box (GSR12416), the latter two points are in my view the reason that the slide in Cisco's relative market share was arrested following multiple quarters of Juniper making inroads. In my view this new T box will help Juniper's boost Juniper's relative market share figues, which in turn will help their stock and thus if Cisco were to consider Juniper's mkt cap low enough right now, then now might be a good time to take back their market and reinstate their monopoly position.

Make sense? Don't you just love this BS crystal ball stuff!

HG
darnlucky
darnlucky
12/4/2012 | 10:32:46 PM
re: Juniper Goes Terabit With the T640
What does this announcement do to the big router startups like Pluris, Hyperchip, Caspian, etc? Does this mean bad things or good things. Seems that Juniper is further ahead than all of them or does this give them more of a chance now that an established player has built the big one?
euler
euler
12/4/2012 | 10:32:45 PM
re: Juniper Goes Terabit With the T640
the big advantage the startups you mention have is the software was designed from day 1 to work in a distributed environment. the biggest job for juniper is the software when connecting multiple 640s together (even if the end-result looks like a logical extension of the backplane).
red1969
red1969
12/4/2012 | 10:32:44 PM
re: Juniper Goes Terabit With the T640
Anybody have any info on the HFR V T640 or just a snapshot of what the HFR can do?
reoptic
reoptic
12/4/2012 | 10:32:44 PM
re: Juniper Goes Terabit With the T640
Where are all the established big carrier customers with lots of traffic on this announcement? Verio and a bunch of R&D guys is hardly what you would expect after this thing has been rumoured for so long. Maybe fact you have to throw away almost all the line card investment in the M160/M40 generations, plus fact that it doesn't scale for another year, is causing folks to take their time in evaluating it. But you have to congratulate Juniper to get something new out there in the market.
<<   <   Page 2 / 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
Multiband Microwave Provides High Capacity & High Reliability for 5G Transport
By Don Frey, Principal Analyst, Transport & Routing, Ovum
5G + Cloud + AI + Ecosystem, Opening New World of Video
By Samuel Chen, President, Cloud & Data Center Marketing, Huawei
All Partner Perspectives