<<   <   Page 2 / 5   >   >>
LightCycle 12/5/2012 | 3:39:55 PM
re: PBT Sidelined at BT Come'on... BT has absolutely made the right decision here.

Lets face it, on these backhaul links, if BT doesn't need Traffic-Engineering nor guaranteed 50ms protection, and cost is not your primary concern, then why bother with PBT at all!??

After all, PBT only really starts to makes sense if you want to provide customers with SONET like quality and service assurance on Ethernet.... its hardly required everywhere, especially not in BT's backhaul network.
douaibei 12/5/2012 | 3:39:54 PM
re: PBT Sidelined at BT the PBT looks to be dead now, but the PBB technology will be retained in the new BT architecture, they will use the PBB + H-VPLS to fix the service requirement. and the PBB-TE will potential survival.

Still the MPLS has a lot of issue for protection, OAM, but the venors are trying to generate new idea to fix the issue.

Alcatel, Ciena will be very strong in this market.
digits 12/5/2012 | 3:39:54 PM
re: PBT Sidelined at BT Hmmmm... I can't help thinking that this isn't the death of PBT, though BT's decisiosn is clearly a major flesh wound to the PBT camp.

BT would be pressing forward with its PBT plans if it wasn't for the change in personnel -- this is a people issue as much as, if not more than, a technology issue.

As much as there are plenty of people wanting to give PBT a good kicking, don't write it off just yet.

This may look like a PBT Tragedy, but BT's decision is Act II, not the finale.

Oh, and light-headed, according to Nortel, the next big technology is 4G -- Wimax and LTE.

jepovic 12/5/2012 | 3:39:54 PM
re: PBT Sidelined at BT A philosophical question: For something to be able to die, doesn't it need to be alive in the first place?

This is the equivalent of Clearwire pulling out of Wimax before the launch. Of course it's the end.

There are only room for so many protocols in a carrier network. Most of us have been working very hard to get rid of FR & ATM and replacing it with IP / Ethernet/ MPLS. PBT can't replace any protocol globally, just in certain cases. Looking at the complete network serving all customers, therefore, PBT increases complexity and cost.
chechaco 12/5/2012 | 3:39:53 PM
re: PBT Sidelined at BT Well, strictly speaking, IETF doesn't work on PBT or PBB-TE because this is IEEE's standartization domain. IETF works on possible application of GMPLS as Control Plane to PBB-TE. If you follow IETF closely then you should know that GELS WG never took off and the work related to Control Plane, which is GMPLS-based, is in CCAMP WG. Also, I'd like to remind, that MPLS didn't have VPLS from the day one. And there's a good reason that after VPLS another model, H-VPLS, was introduced. And even these two have several issues, like "single point of failure" to name one.
To sum my points, all x-MPLS (look for T-MPLS from ITU) technologies are complex and it takes time to develop scalable P2MP and MP2MP connection-oriented solutions.
litereading 12/5/2012 | 3:39:53 PM
re: PBT Sidelined at BT Question - if BT undergoes still another organizational change (or is this the last one?), does that mean they will re-tender in favor of SDH?

jepovic 12/5/2012 | 3:39:52 PM
re: PBT Sidelined at BT That's one half-hearted attempt by one major carrier to keep a technology alive. That's not gonna work for long. Every single carrier is already using MPLS. This is not even like Token Ring vs Ethernet. It's more like Ralph Nader
somedumbPM 12/5/2012 | 3:39:52 PM
re: PBT Sidelined at BT I don;t have experience with all of the technologies you listed to avoid, but RPR has been a easy and very dependable solution to a large number of connection issues with outside entities for me. -profitable too by the way.

For circuits that need to be up at all times, even through hurricanes -enduring fiber cuts and power outages, RPR has not failed me yet.
chechaco 12/5/2012 | 3:39:51 PM
re: PBT Sidelined at BT You can, but may not compare MPLS apples with PBB-TE oranges. PBT/PBB-TE can be compared with PWE3. It's true, that P2MP and MP2MP extensions of PBB-TE paradigm yet to be finalized but VPLS/H-VPLS has many issues that create technological window of opportunity for new technologies.
davallan 12/5/2012 | 3:39:50 PM
re: PBT Sidelined at BT Getting back to Craig's original question...

In the bigger picture of Provider Ethernet this is at worst a speed bump. PBT is simply a feature of Ethernet (it is a small amendment to 802.1Q). What PBT illustrates is how much the WHOLE Ethenet package has grown up...

Many of the rest of the merits of Provider Ethernet are already acknowledged by the rush to front end VPLS with PBB. A situation that just puts the "no-brainer" in doing PBT back if PBB is anything more than a gratuitous additional encapsulation on VPLS PEs to solve VPLS problems....

Ethernet in general has way too much going for it. Much of what makes Ethernet special cannot be duplicated by any of the other networking technologies on the table today.... end of story.

<<   <   Page 2 / 5   >   >>
Sign In