re: Lucent Clarifies Product Strategy"Since the B-STDX is ominously missing from Russo's data products, maybe they will relable it to become the almighty Psax box that sports MPLS."
I was under the impression that B-STDX was canned in summer 2000. Well, the announcement was "no more h/w development, s/w development reduced to maintenance only".
re: Lucent Clarifies Product StrategyIt means that LU softswitches aren't working.
Clearly softswitches at some other companies are showing promise.
Softswitches are a difficult concept to sell in a capital constrained environment, especially when you have perfectly good hardswitches doing the job just fine, thanks.
Therefore the evolution at the core from hard to soft, TDM to packet will have to wait for someone to actually show tangible benefits. Could be a while
re: Lucent Clarifies Product Strategyhrdhtr wrote "never passed a packet on a live network"
This is not correct. At least at one point in '99, 2 NX6400s passed packets @ oc48 along the NE corridor on T's network, participating in their iBGP using OSPF, for over a month. Worked well.
re: Lucent Clarifies Product StrategyLU softswitch is what runs Level3 voice switching. It did quite well for its time. Then the goobers running the 5ESS program panicked at the thought of a cost effective switch and killed the project internally. The people who ran the LU SS program jumped ship and formed Winphoria sensing that there was more money to be made in the wireless MSC market with SS than in the wireline market. Meanwhile the SS at L3 was left to rot with just a semblance of support from LU. LU's name raises a stink ever since in the SS market. LU SS is mostly smoke and mirrors now. blah ... blah ... blah ...zzzZZZ
re: Lucent Clarifies Product StrategyRe: It means that LU softswitches aren't working.
Honestly, there are very few companies that have any clue how to implement a real softswitch. Lucent obviously gave up. NortelGÇÖs Mr. Potato Head solution does not even come close to resembling a softswitch. Alcatel tried and came up a bit short and Tekelec only has a few ones in the field. Sonus has had some market successes, but lately came up dry and besides, their solution does not scale. Santera probably has the best technical solution, but no visible market traction. Winforia has had better luck in the wireless space, but typically they have to team up with a Gateway partner to be even considered in C4 / C5 space. Taqua can probably compete in the market for single T1s, but thatGÇÖs it.
It will take some major player finally taking a plunge based on the density and price advantages before the SS make it into the mainstream
re: Lucent Clarifies Product StrategyHere is what I would like to see.
Some company pulls the plug on the 4Es and 5Es in a part of the network and replace them with some nextgen packet switch voice gateways and softswitch controller. Cost justify cap expense with ROI from reduced operational costs from space, power, maintenance, trunking, etc. over say a 24 month period, with operational savings adding to the bottom line after that.
If it works, continue replacing 5Es until network is all packet, no TDM. Opex savings over a multiyear period should be immense.
I know it will take years, but they have to start sometime, right? Lets face it, service provider margins are going right down the drain, so what have they got to loose?
re: Lucent Clarifies Product Strategyre: hrdhtr wrote "never passed a packet on a live network"
re: This is not correct. At least at one point in '99, 2 NX6400s passed packets @ oc48 along the NE corridor on T's network, participating in their iBGP using OSPF, for over a month. Worked well.
You can't be serious when you make these type of "lab trial" analogies, can you? I've been involved with the "T" account for over 6 yrs now and NEVER saw the NX platform in a live network period!!!. "T" will only deploy a switch in there live network when they've successfully completed extensive and brutal lab testing, which usually last 12 months. Ask any vendor out there. So I canGÇÖt see how GÇ£at one pointGÇ¥ the NX did anything except GÇ£lab trialGÇ¥ for a month.
By the way, your correct in that it may have lasted a month, because GÇ£TGÇ¥ threw it out after it only did 256 byte packets at 50% line rate in a single-area, partial mesh scenario, in which route reflectors and abr didnGÇÖt even work. I did some checking.
Then again, who cares, whereGÇÖs the NX platform now, oops, I mean the TMX....DOA my friend.
re: Lucent Clarifies Product Strategy"You can't be serious when you make these type of "lab trial" analogies, can you? I've been involved with the "T" account for over 6 yrs now and NEVER saw the NX platform in a live network period!!!."
I saw it. It matters not that you didn't. " "T" will only deploy a switch in there live network when they've successfully completed extensive and brutal lab testing, which usually last 12 months."
4 months in this case.
"Ask any vendor out there. So I canGÇÖt see how GÇ£at one pointGÇ¥ the NX did anything except GÇ£lab trialGÇ¥ for a month."
can't see, didn't see.
"By the way, your correct in that it may have lasted a month, because GÇ£TGÇ¥ threw it out after it only did 256 byte packets at 50% line rate in a single-area, partial mesh scenario, in which route reflectors and abr didnGÇÖt even work. I did some checking."
Absolutely incorrect.
"Then again, who cares, whereGÇÖs the NX platform now, oops, I mean the TMX....DOA my friend."
I was under the impression that B-STDX was canned in summer 2000. Well, the announcement was "no more h/w development, s/w development reduced to maintenance only".
/MAB