<<   <   Page 2 / 2
paolo.franzoi 12/5/2012 | 4:21:16 PM
re: Operator Views on Next-Gen ROADMs



No, I am not.&nbsp; I am basically saying - and I have no dog in any of these fights - that there are two conflicts going on here.

Bout #1:&nbsp; Router Vendors versus Optical Vendors:&nbsp; They are each trying to suck some percentage of the dollars given to the other guy into their products.

Bout #2:&nbsp; Transport Orgs in Carriers versus Router Orgs in Carriers:&nbsp; They are each trying to suck budget from the other guys (as well as prestige).

Both sides of both bouts will put up arguments to bolster their claims.&nbsp; You will be able to find Tier 1 Carrier folks to back BOTH vendor positions.

I am completely opinionless on how it will actually turn out.&nbsp; The only thing I can say is that dyanamic optical stuff seems like a stretch for guys looking to eliminate patch panels.




melao2 12/5/2012 | 4:21:15 PM
re: Operator Views on Next-Gen ROADMs

Hehe. I find funny taking in perspective, what was expect from the optical networking technology, and what actually hapenned.

Back in 99 or 2000, the all optical switch was touted to be the holy grail of the backbone. Now that this type of switch is actually feasable, we see that the optical layer cannot solve it all, nor the routing layer.

I have to agree with brookseven. His view is completely correct. All the carriers and vendors have the same strugle.

joferrei 12/5/2012 | 4:21:13 PM
re: Operator Views on Next-Gen ROADMs

How about this:

More packet level routing/switching improves optical bw utilization, but makes the overall $/bw higher--what packet level grooming saves in bw, it costs in making the remaining bw needed more expensive.

Similar, optical bypass of packet level processing lowers the overall $/bw, but also lowers the bw efficiency, requiring more bw in the network--what optical router bypass saves in router ports, it costs via increased optical bw requirements.

Can't the vendors develop a system that increases the packet transport bw efficiency without needing packet layer processing in the carrier network, besides the entry/exit points? Or is that simply not possible, and why?

neyo 12/5/2012 | 4:21:11 PM
re: Operator Views on Next-Gen ROADMs Theoretically possible. It's been conceptualized for a long time now. Nowhere near maturity though. Nevertheless carriers are still recklessly spending big money on optical switching thinking it will materialize soon.
Pete Baldwin 12/5/2012 | 4:21:09 PM
re: Operator Views on Next-Gen ROADMs

OK, folks.&nbsp; Here's your chance to vote on whether next-gen ROADMs are a waste of time:

ROADMs: What Do Service Providers Really Want?

tmmarvel 12/5/2012 | 4:21:08 PM
re: Operator Views on Next-Gen ROADMs

Given that this will be, with the current network bandwidth usage and revenue/cost&nbsp;trends continuing, an essential problem to solve, it would be interesting to know what the actual difficulties are in getting layers beneath packet switching to adjust to actual application load demands..

While&nbsp;solving the&nbsp;fundamental problem that&nbsp;ROADMs seem to be addressing in itself&nbsp;doesnt seem to be waste of time, given how long these solutions (call them WSON, ASON/ASTN, ODUflex, GMPL(amba)S or whatever) have been&nbsp;in the development without a decisive breakthrough, I guess the worthwhileness of this effort depends on whether the 'theoretical' solution will ever be achievable at economical costs.

Are there any developments in the underlying/surrounding technologies that would now fulfill the&nbsp;promise of packet-aware optics (speaking loosely ie incl. actually digital protocols such as ODUflex)?

Or is the over-provisioning of the layers beneath packet switching just a reality that the carriers and end customer need to live with and pay for?

But as mentioned, looking at the network revenue-cost&nbsp;trajectories, it would seem to get&nbsp;worse from here on&nbsp;without some breakthrough..&nbsp;

<<   <   Page 2 / 2
Sign In