re: Level 3, XO Rethink MSPPsMichael 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?
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.
re: Level 3, XO Rethink MSPPsThis 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.
re: Level 3, XO Rethink MSPPsIt'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.
re: Level 3, XO Rethink MSPPsI 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.
re: Level 3, XO Rethink MSPPsIt is quite a surprise how VCs and the LR views Ethernet.
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.
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?