& cplSiteName &
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View        ADD A COMMENT
<<   <   Page 5 / 10   >   >>
materialgirl
materialgirl
12/5/2012 | 2:44:55 AM
re: Nortel/Avici: Getting Together?
What ever happened to the Wellfleet routing code? Is is now the BayRS? Is it obsolete because it lacks MPLS? That was the first CSCO-killer way back when.
materialgirl
materialgirl
12/5/2012 | 2:44:55 AM
re: Nortel/Avici: Getting Together?
What ever happened to the Wellfleet routing code? Is is now the BayRS? Is it obsolete because it lacks MPLS? That was the first CSCO-killer way back when.
jsailor
jsailor
12/5/2012 | 2:44:54 AM
re: Nortel/Avici: Getting Together?

I can say GAME, but how many people remember what it stood (stands) for?
MaxQoS
MaxQoS
12/5/2012 | 2:44:54 AM
re: Nortel/Avici: Getting Together?
Yes, BayRS (or whatever NT calls it now) is the old Wellfleet code. Can you say GAME?

Cheers,

Max
signmeup
signmeup
12/5/2012 | 2:44:53 AM
re: Nortel/Avici: Getting Together?
WRONG!

You guys are totally missing the point. How can you possibly say that the Bay acquistion was a success? Sure, you MIGHT run into one once a blue moon, but does ANYBODY consider NT a contender in routing? Before NT acquired Bay, Bay was an equal contender to Cisco - after the acquistion, you never heard of them again. Cisco captured the entire space until Juniper started making inroads in the ISP space.

NT effectively removed the competition from Cisco's path and said "Here you go, why don't you own the market while I figure out this IP stuff..."

The fact that NT keeps the BayRS stuff on life support is NOT indicative of a successful product line. You have to have at LEAST 1% of the market share to even get on the radar. Where exactly does the BayRS & Accelar rank?

Belzebutt
Belzebutt
12/5/2012 | 2:44:53 AM
re: Nortel/Avici: Getting Together?
1) The Passport 8600, formerly Accelar 1200, formerly Rapid City.
2) Baystack boxes still sell (no growth, but still revenue)
3) Miscellaneous BayRS boxes (ARN, FBR, etc.)
4) Some optivity apps
5) Shasta
6) Alteon products (did quite well with that purchase)



Don't forget Contivity, that's probably the most successful part of the Bay acquisition, along with the 8600. Bay actually bought that (New Oak) just before NT bought them. Great box.

Shasta is still around and has a large market share in the IP services space.

Cambrian was a great buy, worked out very well with the OM5000.

Xros and Qtera are on the flip side of that of course, made during the bubble.
Betelgeuse
Betelgeuse
12/5/2012 | 2:44:52 AM
re: Nortel/Avici: Getting Together?
GAME (Gate Access Management Entity) if my memory of ancient history serves.
dash_riprock
dash_riprock
12/5/2012 | 2:44:51 AM
re: Nortel/Avici: Getting Together?
What ever happened to the Wellfleet routing code?
------------------------------------------------

that was darn good software. They lost their way after the Synoptics merger and could never really get their act straight. ( geography had a lot to do with it)

Bay was dead long before NT scooped them up.
In hindsight Wellfleet should have acquired Cascade in 94 and maybe Chipcom or some other L2 switch vendor in the beantown area instead of going down the synoptics route.
Now, that would have been a CSCO killer



keelhaul42
keelhaul42
12/5/2012 | 2:44:49 AM
re: Nortel/Avici: Getting Together?
That's a good question! Nortel (er, ah, Northern Telecom back then) paid heap plenty to acquire Bay Networks (itself a merger of SynOptics & Wellfleet)a few years back.
Nortel (and Bay before it),unlike Cisco, never did well at acquiring companies and building on their investment. Key personnel [in the acquired companies] vested their options and left, many more followed them out the door.
Also, Nortel cut its staff by about one-half in the last 3 years. It may be difficult to find anyone who even knows where the code is, let alone build & maintain it.
Tony Li
Tony Li
12/5/2012 | 2:44:38 AM
re: Nortel/Avici: Getting Together?

Stomper,

If you choose to make the switch fabric part of the chassis that also holds revenue ports, then the ports out the back of the chassis must carry not only the bandwidth of the revenue ports, but also transit bandwidth for traffic crossing your topology.

You cannot reasonably scale a topology where one chassis connects to all other chassis, so you are forced into having a limited fanout and thus some constrained topology. Those topological constraints make it somewhat more difficul to provide full any-to-any bandwidth.

For example, suppose that we select a fanout of four and a torroidal mesh topology. Suppose also that we try to support a traffic load where all traffic entering the mesh needs to exit in the worst possible place: 180 degrees around the longitudinal dimension and also 180 degress around the latitude. Thus, each bit of traffic needs to also pass through N other systems to reach its exit point. For this to not cause blocking, the mesh must now have many times the revenue bandwidth of a node as part of its switch fabric capacity. And this is true even if you assume perfect routing.

In short, if you agree that you need any-to-any bandwidth, then you need a switch fabric that is rearrangeably non-blocking. There are many years of switching theory that look at ways of constructing such switching fabrics.

Tony
<<   <   Page 5 / 10   >   >>


Featured Video
Upcoming Live Events
November 5, 2019, London, England
November 7, 2019, London, UK
November 14, 2019, Maritim Hotel, Berlin
December 3-5, 2019, Vienna, Austria
December 3, 2019, New York, New York
March 16-18, 2020, Embassy Suites, Denver, Colorado
May 18-20, 2020, Irving Convention Center, Dallas, TX
All Upcoming Live Events