re: Multiservice SwitchesHi, ATM provide better ROI is because the revenue per port is higher... For example, a FR DS1 port revenue per month is around $2K per month.. An IP DS1 internet acess per month is around $500 per month or less.. It is 4 times difference... Number one application of ATM is to carry FR..
<< Per port, ATM is more expensive to deploy and maintain (at least that's conventional wisdom).>>
This statement is not exactly true either.. If you want to deploy a network with QOS, ATM network is cheaper and easier to deploy.. Only if you do not care about providing good QOS, then IP is cheaper and easier to deploy..
re: Multiservice SwitchesFor example, a FR DS1 port revenue per month is around $2K per month.. An IP DS1 internet acess per month is around $500 per month or less.. ---------------------------------------
Can you please explain why is it that FR DS1 is more expensive than IP DS1 (i am guessing PPP)? As far as service provider goes he has to terminate the DS1 somewhere - a FR switch or a router.
re: Multiservice Switches >>>Can you please explain why is it that FR DS1 is more expensive than IP DS1 (i am guessing PPP)? As far as service provider goes he has to terminate the DS1 somewhere - a FR switch or a router.
_____________
I suggest it is the VPN/Minimum Guaranteed Bandwidth nature of a Frame Relay circuit, compared to pure Internet access over IP ... An enterprise buys frame relay PVCs to interconnect its networks in a layer 2 VPN with QoS and service level guarantees - they will pay more for this ... you simply cannot achieve the same service today over a traditionally-routed IP network.
ATM to the enterprise would be even better than frame relay, but the ROI of rolling out ATM services at lower speeds to the enterprise has been a barrier to acceptance for many years, so we use FR at the edge and ATM in the core for scalability.
The introduction of MPLS technology will make it easier to offer VPNs at the IP layer (read: much less operational management overhead in managing the enterprise VPN and removal of the dependency upon FR as the layer 2 protocol)and enterprises will be prepared to pay the bigger bucks for this feature. MPLS technology claims to essentially offers a way to bring QoS and basic network traffic engineering (both requisite for a VPN service) to many different types of data sources, including IP, with minimal overheads (bandwidth and operational).
re: Multiservice Switches<< ItGÇÖs also worth noting that ATM VC support is especially important in networks that are carrying digital subscriber line (DSL) traffic, because each DSL connection requires two VCs GÇô one in each direction. >>
Hi Steve, ATM VC is full duplex. You only need one VCC to carry traffic in each direction. On the other hand, MPLS LSP is simplex. You will need one MPLS LSP for each direction.
re: Multiservice SwitchesI suggest it is the VPN/Minimum Guaranteed Bandwidth nature of a Frame Relay circuit, compared to pure Internet access over IP ... An enterprise buys frame relay PVCs to interconnect its networks in a layer 2 VPN with QoS and service level guarantees - they will pay more for this ... ------------------------------------
But VPN isn't the same thing as plain IP connectivity (i.e. connection to Internet). I would use FR if I had offices in several US cities and wanted to interconnect them and have some guaranteed bandwidth. On the other hand I would not care what interface service provider gives me if all I wanted was an internet connectivity. They can give me FR, T1 or what have you.
Regardless I don't understand why Service provider has to charge more for a FR service. Ultimately FR and DS1 is probably going over an ATM network anyways. I don't see any extra cost that Service provider has to incur.
re: Multiservice Switchesjamesbond said it better than I could... "Regardless I don't understand why Service provider has to charge more for a FR service. Ultimately FR and DS1 is probably going over an ATM network anyways. I don't see any extra cost that Service provider has to incur."
Does it all boil down to SLAs? An SP can charge more for services tied to SLAs than ones not tied to SLAs? If so, then FR (which is what is most often deployed on the edge) would be the real money maker.
I think that one of the respondents is confusing the FR service market with FR as an access technology to the Internet.
The FR service market is private line replacement for enterperises interconnecting sites in their corporate networks (intranets). Using FR as an access method to an ISP is a different market. Although, there are carriers that provide bundles - a single access circuit to their FR switching network with a PVC as access to their Internet service and regular PVCs for the corporate WAN. Single circuit, multiple services.
Since the FR market is different from the Internet market the pricing is different. An economics 101, pricing of the service does not reflect the cost of the service, but instead reflects the market price. FR services are profitable because the market prices have positive margins relative to the cost of providing the service. Many Internet services (all?) have negative margins because the market price is below the cost to provide the service.
Also, when comparing costs of FR/ATM services with Internet services, capital costs are a small piece of the total cost. Furthermore, if you are comparing enterprise equipment costs for enterprise routers and ATM switches, that does not necessarily translate into an appropriate comparison for providers who use a different class of equipment. Carrier class equipment does not have that great of a price difference per port between routers and ATM switches.
As for the total cost, beyond the capital per port of the switching/routing platform, consider the costs of the network development, OSS development, Operations, trunking costs (to interconnect the rotuers/switches) and customer care. The port cost of the router/switch is a fraction (very significant, but far from the majority). I know that the OSS's are much more sophisticated for ATM networks compared to router networks. ATM switches have better redundancy and reliability than routers (how many in service provider routers are _currently_ in-service software upgradeable without impacting customers?). Operations and customer care organizations tend to be smaller (headcount per customer port) for ATM service networks than router networks. Again, lack of EMS/OSS for routers (the standard router provisioning is either human or an expect/perl script taling to a CLI tty).
Finally, customer care for routing service is more expensive. Case in point: an enterprise connecting two sites using a private line only calls the carrier if the private line is down. The carrier has a limited number of tests to be done to evaluate and fix the private line, and none of them involve the enterprises routing. If the enterprise has a routing problem ("can't reach IP address X) do they call the private line provider if the private line is okay? No. It is also true for FR/ATM services. If the enterprise is having routing problems and the PVCs are up they don't bother the PVC provider with their IP routing problems. But with a provider routing service, if the enterprise has routing trouble they often call the provider. [example call: C: "hey, I can't reach address X". P: "Okay, we see the route and our network looks okay." C:"Well, I still don't have reachability. Can you take a look at my premise router config?" P: "Okay (can't refuse important enterprise customer)". Some time later P: "Okay, found the problem - you fat fingered a network advertisement."]
Bottomline, providing an IP routing service on par with a FR/ATM service is more costly and is coupled with the problem that the market prices for Internet service are lower than for FR/ATM.
The earlier post confused FR service with access to ISP.
FR as an access method to an ISP is not necessarily priced more or less than using PPP. The providers cost for using FR versus PPP may vary. If the provider has a large footprint FR network compared to their IP service then backhauling the FR PVC to the access router is probably cheaper than backhauling a private line - this is particularly true for global carriers. But using a FR switch network to reach the access router when router footprint is comparable to the FR network footprint is probably more costly. When just using FR encapsulation versus PPP over a private line directly connected to the access router there will be no cost difference.
re: Multiservice SwitchesThe discussion about internal switch fabric is not really important. Many high end routers, for example, have fixed packet length fabrics (effectively "cell" fabrics). And fabrics always have more bandwidth with the actual slot I/O, because there are always addtional headers/overhead to handle routing (fabric routing) and packet handling within switch.
The author is confusing this with whether or not the backbone (trunking) interfaces are frame or ATM cell based and the issues with those choices.
re: Multiservice Switches> Does anyone know why Lucent has fallen off the > planet in this area that Cascade/Ascend > initially ruled? (CBX-500 & GX-550). > > Their data sheets show a lot of promises for > the GX-550, but they've failed to deliver (for > 2 years) on the following areas...
This is really simple, and quite obvious to anyone who was at Cascade, or who knew many people who were at Cascade.
The simple fact is that 350 smart and pretty good junior engineers, with no relevant experience and no adult supervision, can't build a product. 150 engineers, including 120 smart and pretty good junior engineers and 30 smart, practical and very good experienced engineers *with appropriate relevant experience* can build a very good product.
At the point that Ascend purchased Cascade, the engineering team at Cascade was very good. They were a little bit caught between products (the previous product sales started to slump a bit before the next product was shipped), but they were a kick ass team building a kick ass product (the 550 was well along, and other good things were in the works).
Ascend didn't run Cascade long enough to cause a clear result. However, it is pretty obvious that from the point that Lucent purchased Ascend the experienced folks at Cascade mostly left (many leaving before the purchase was finished). It is not possible for me to know what was going on in the minds of the managers from Lucent (I didn't know them), but it sure looked from outside as if they were quite happy to have the experienced engineers leave.
"Unlike IP services, ATM services offer a return on investment (ROI)."
Could you explain why ATM is such a money-maker? Per port, ATM is more expensive to deploy and maintain (at least that's conventional wisdom).
And why have AT&T's ATM revenues grown by 42 percent this year? What's driving this growth?
best regards,
--Beo