net_exprt 12/5/2012 | 1:54:15 AM
re: Nortel's Neptune Surfaces the last time Nortel tried to spell IP, they fell flat on their face .....
net_exprt 12/5/2012 | 1:54:14 AM
re: Nortel's Neptune Surfaces so how many Nortel + Avici equipment was sold based on this partnership???? does anyone even care?
wass 12/5/2012 | 1:54:14 AM
re: Nortel's Neptune Surfaces Maybe I'm missing something, but wouldn't this overlap somewhat with their partnership with Avici?
Betelgeuse 12/5/2012 | 1:54:12 AM
re: Nortel's Neptune Surfaces I made a mistake and downloaded the whitepaper mentioned in the article. I couldnGÇÖt stop laughing when I read the following passage.

GÇ£For example, a typical residential
customer would willingly pay seven cents
a minute for long-distance voice calls, yet
bristle at anything more than $35 per
month for unlimited high-speed Internet
access that is almost two orders of
magnitude cheaperGÇöat roughly $0.0008 per minute.GÇ¥

It just seemed to be such a good example of the type of accounting that has Nortel in the headlines these days.

Upside_again 12/5/2012 | 1:54:10 AM
re: Nortel's Neptune Surfaces Nortel did a great job 3 years ago of putting 100's of Shasta's out there yet they need replacing and fast. If this puppy ever see's real light of day, it will put a good wind back into Nortel.
The_Professor 12/5/2012 | 1:53:51 AM
re: Nortel's Neptune Surfaces Wrong. Plain wrong.

Shasta is way behind other vendors. How long did it take Nortel to admit defeat that CR-LDP wasn't going to be the label distribution protocol of choice?

Shasta had the makings of a decent box when they were a start-up, but Nortel spun a good marketware story and sold stuff they couldn't deliver.

Shasta has always been behind the curve and, based on past experience with Nortel and present talent, I don't see Neptune making any headway.

Bottom line... Nortel is a day late and a dollar short on the technical front, and given their track record over the last 3 or 4 years, what CEO/CFO in their right mind would give them a chance to displace encumbants?
ATMRules 12/5/2012 | 1:53:50 AM
re: Nortel's Neptune Surfaces Please...spare me the BS, The new GOD BOX, IP router, Ethernet, ATM and Frame Relay all in one?.....we saw what Nortel did with Bay Networks!!, and what about the partnership with Avici?

Something is not right here. This articles talks about a lot of players in the multiservice area...Cisco owns the router market...layer 3.....Cascade/Ascend/Lucent own the layer 2 switch market...I have to admit there are quite a bit of Nortel Passports out there too...but not as many as Cascade...Verizon has over 1,500 Cascade B-STDX/CBX 500 deployed out there right now...never mind Bellsouth, SBC and Quest...

This just reminds me of the hipe about MPLS/IP Core, like who is going to do that? the switch or the router? Probably the router but the switch will have to speak MPLS too...

Neptune...ok might as well call the processor Pluto.......

Before I forget, Hammerhead Systems???...please....ok..let me hire a couple of Cascade/Ascend people and try to this layer 2 thing....they have tried to flip this company so fast it's not funny.....a day late and a dollar short......Oh I can't wait to see the Lucent CBX-3500 switch at Supercomm....no matter how much lipstick you put on this pig it's still a CBX-500 with almost 13 year old spaghetti code......and Juniper you're not going anywhere either.... M320....stick to layer 3 you're doing a good job there...your partnership with Lucent will make a few sales and that's it..........

I think that's enough for now...

IP will NEVER have the QOS of ATM....


edgesansonet 12/5/2012 | 1:52:48 AM
re: Nortel's Neptune Surfaces ATMRules,
You are forgeting that the Carrier industry wants to or atleast right now intends to, deploy MPLS/IP switch/routers in their core networks. Wonder how far this will go. Probably, this depends on how well applications like Layer 2 VPNs, VPLS etc., are sold by Carriers.
But, I agree with your statement on IP QoS vs ATM QoS. Probably, it has more to do with circuit-switched technology vs packet-switched technology. Yet, IP need not guarantee QoS on the same level as ATM since 10 GE links will make up for lack of granularity at the Layer 3 level. So, Carriers seem to bet on a triple-push: DiffServ schemes for IP, Layer 2/3 VPNs and 10 GE. JMHO.