<<   <   Page 6 / 11   >   >>
Neophone 12/5/2012 | 12:15:31 AM
re: Procket Gets Unstealthy so how can procket avoid data loss? by graceful restart or something else?
dellman 12/5/2012 | 12:15:29 AM
re: Procket Gets Unstealthy The chasis in a rack will be connected by a dedicated switch fabric to give 960G?

Page 4 says switch fabric provides 480Gbps.

I would consider 480G itself a big achievement - maybe they are doubling it to get an edge over Juniper.
Tony Li 12/5/2012 | 12:15:27 AM
re: Procket Gets Unstealthy
Just to be clear, the 8812 supports 480Gbps, full duplex. Yes, that's 48 OC-192's.

The 960Gbps that you will see in some of our literature is so that we can compare with the numbers that some of our competitors distribute.

smokeNmirrors 12/5/2012 | 12:15:26 AM
re: Procket Gets Unstealthy I am interested in the "no carriers want mesh" comment. Can you explain that statement? What do they want in your opinion? Thanks.


IP Observer wrote:
No scalability (from data sheet-"less meshing" Procket-unfortunately service providers want no meshing)

Belzebutt 12/5/2012 | 12:15:23 AM
re: Procket Gets Unstealthy Just to be clear, the 8812 supports 480Gbps, full duplex.

In Cisco/Juniper speak, isn't that 480Gbps simplex (i.e. you only count the traffic in one direction)? I thought when Cisco doubles the numbers to count traffic in both directions it's called "duplex", in which case you get 2x the port capacity of your router (assuming all ports are at line rate).

By the way, it appears the PRO/8801 has single points of failure in the route processor and the switch fabric?

And what's in the big space between the power supplies, other than gremlins? :)
IP Observer 12/5/2012 | 12:15:23 AM
re: Procket Gets Unstealthy

"No, we haven't done SNMPv3 yet. No, the in-service upgrade is not yet zero downtime. Yes, we thought about doing ATM, but most of the customers that we spoke with had already phased out ATM."

Tony, based on these comments it would appear that Procket has been spending all of its time in the lab and not enough time speaking to customers. Or if you have, they are not the ones that can make a decision about buying your product.

These types of statements are appropriate for a bygone era. Internet bubble burst before you guys made it out.

signmeup 12/5/2012 | 12:15:19 AM
re: Procket Gets Unstealthy I think Tony means that in engineering speak the 8812 supports 480Gbps throughput in full duplex, whereas the marketing speak numbers would be 960Gbps, which is what Cisco and Juniper both use.

After looking at the 12404 spec sheet, which is Cisco's nearest competitor to the 8801, it does not support switch fabric redundancy either. It offers 1 combo CSC/Alarm card, and 4 user slots. It does include RP redundancy, however doing so would reduce the # of usable line-card slots to 2, so the max capacity would only be 20Gig (10Gig per slot) compared to 80Gig (with no redundancy) usable on the 8801. If you went with a 12404 with no RP redundancy, you could get 60Gig theoretically.

From the mechanical appearance of the 8801, it looks like they designed it so that they could scale the chassis to a larger size and still use the same power supplies and cards. If they introduced a 1/4 rack system, it would most likely use 3 power supplies (a 2+1 redundant) system. This would make since sense of the space between the 2 power supplies on the 8801.

fiat_lux 12/5/2012 | 12:15:19 AM
re: Procket Gets Unstealthy Where is ATM/channelized support? It does not
look like there is space on the physical line card for SAR buffer. Will RBOCs be interested if there
is no ATM? Can the central packet buffer be
used as a SAR?

How many routes can it handle? There is no
mention of this in any of the specs... perhaps
it's very limited.

Where is the ACL support? I don't see any CAMs
on there.

There does not seem to be enough counters. Only
256K for the entire line card? This does not seem
to be enough for ethernet VLAN MIBs.

Is the OC-3 card real? There is no part number
for it.

How many tags are supported for MPLS? What about
MPLS on ethernet, and all of the other real world

In general there is not enough information about
the software.
fifteenfifty 12/5/2012 | 12:15:11 AM
re: Procket Gets Unstealthy This is just a death rattle. The corpse is twitching a few last times. Does anyone seriouly expect these people to survive? The will run out of case, and die on the vine. Wither and blow away. Why would anyone in their right mind risk deploying their unproven gear? The companies left which are capable of writing such big cheques are those most averse to any risk whatsoever.
Procket does not have enough time (money) left to wait through one year of wait-and-see customers, all the while receiving zero income. If you believe otherwise you are just one more dot-com sucker, the last of a dying breed.
mmmmflows 12/5/2012 | 12:15:10 AM
re: Procket Gets Unstealthy
>BTW The Caspian news bulletin has a really >insensitive comment from the CEO. He states how the >product is such a huge accomplishment for the team, >etc. He neglects to mention that he's just laid off >40% of them now that the job is complete. I'm sure >the "displaced team members" would rather have been >less successful and still have their jobs.

Yes, this is a disturbing action. And it doesn't bode well for startups in the valley. If they get a reputation for "throwing away" engineers once their task is accomplished, no one in their right mind would work for someone like that. Bill Kraus is going to have a tough time hiring anyone in the future (unless the job market doesn't come up). But in some ways, what do we expect? In the boom time, we threw away companies when a better offer came around. Now the tables are turned.
<<   <   Page 6 / 11   >   >>
Sign In