Pete Baldwin 12/5/2012 | 3:03:03 AM
re: Level 3, XO Rethink MSPPs Michael Howard alluded to an idea like this in a conversation we were having a few weeks ago, suggesting something like an "ESPP" (Ethernet version of MSPP) might be in order.

The idea is definitely out there... but what do folks think of it? Will we see a wave of ESPPs (or some similar acronym) next year?
caggio 12/5/2012 | 3:03:02 AM
re: Level 3, XO Rethink MSPPs http://www.transwitch.com/prod...

TranSwitch Corp. Seems to be well positioned for this new trend. Envoy-XE bridges the Ethernet World with the Sonet World and it does it well. For more info see the link above.

OSXman 12/5/2012 | 3:03:01 AM
re: Level 3, XO Rethink MSPPs What are the strengths of this device and how would you compare it to others on the market?
jmunn 12/5/2012 | 3:03:01 AM
re: Level 3, XO Rethink MSPPs This is more of a chassis architecture problem than a chip problem.

Datacom equipment has no need for complex timing distribution support and TDM based SONET equipment has no capability for chassis based packet switching.

You end up needing both backplanes in the box since CE is expensive within a box and it is tough to do packet switching on a TDM system. This would raise the cost of the basic chassis and hurt TDM only deployment costs.
jmunn 12/5/2012 | 3:02:54 AM
re: Level 3, XO Rethink MSPPs It's a nice L2 processor and Traffic Manager.
The SPI3 interface ties nicely into the current generation EoS framers but not the next gen SPI4.2 framers but an FPGA in between could easily convert from SPI3 to SPI4.2. It can tie directly to the TXC EoS framers even though they don't have direct SPI3 interfaces.

Capacity wise it compares well against the Infineon L2 over SONET 3-chip solution. The TXC would use less power and less space and be significantly cheaper and I think much easier to configure.

It is a little weaker than the Raza/RMI Orion high end integrated L2 and EoS chip but the TXC
chip could be used in a lot more different designs since it is not EoS specific.

The Ethernet switch makers don't see a big enough market to build the Ethernet/L2 to SPI chips. They keep thinking about it but never came through.

This is a much easier sell than a network processor but it will not have the flexibility of a NP design either.

If you need L2 policing, processing and TM to a SPI3 interface it is a nice solution especially since it includes the MACs.
caggio 12/5/2012 | 3:02:48 AM
re: Level 3, XO Rethink MSPPs I agree that the Orion is a nicely integrated solution but, isn't that going to limit the OEM's flexibility in architecting their boxes to a Sonet centric X-Connect or Pizza Box Only? Do you see a real value in integrating the LAYER-2 functionality with the Mapper and Framer?

I would really appreciate if you could shed some light on integration / not-integration advantages and disadvantages of solutions like ORION.

fiberous 12/5/2012 | 3:01:52 AM
re: Level 3, XO Rethink MSPPs It is quite a surprise how VCs and the LR views

Ethernet was designed for LAN. Adapting it for
WAN has never been easy. However, it makes the
best infrastructure for data back haul when the
edge service is being adapted to data (VOIP,
MPEG, etc...)But that does not mean RPR or MPLS
is the solution.

Folks who did not get certified dont get this.
They are in a pipe dream that Ethernet (the one
technology they know least off) will lead them
to the golden pot at the end of the rainbow.

Frank's statement "A lot of carriers that have a Sonet network are putting in an additional network of Ethernet, whether it's RPR or Layer 2 Ethernet," is a good indication of the problem.

Ethernet has evolved from 10 Mbps to 10 Gbps by
figuring out the physical layer. Adaptation has
never been its forte. Folks who participated in
10 Gig Ethernet know well the heated debates
and the eventual emergence of the scape goat
called the WAN phy.

Frank needs to know which end data enters.
The fact is that the service provider data
enter into either a T1 or DS3. I am not sure
what Luminous and the rest of the skeptics have
in this space.

I feel the MEF has done a great job of getting
to a significant point. Folks who are not
certified have serious problems in figuring out
which end to manage - SONET or EThernet.
Frank' statment reflects that kind of confusion.

Sign In