<<   <   Page 5 / 5
jeepman 12/5/2012 | 12:38:10 AM
re: Procket Talk Turns Up Incorrect. NEBS requires testing within certain temperature limits (0'C-55'C) for a specific duration (96hrs) but says nothing about how boards are oriented. It's up to the designers.
silenceofthelambdas 12/5/2012 | 12:38:05 AM
re: Procket Talk Turns Up rtfm asked: "is it my recollection that to be NEBS-certified, the blades have to run vertically, not horizontally? If that is the case, wouldn't that make this a tought sell for RBOCs? Please correct me and enlighten me on what the rules require."
Jeepman contributed: "NEBS requires testing within certain temperature limits (0'C-55'C) for a specific duration (96hrs) but says nothing about how boards are oriented. It's up to the designers."

IGÇÖll add:
As jeepman stated, NEBS does not require vertical card orientation, though that direction makes it easier to design for effective cooling airflow in high-power systems, as vertical airflow follows the natural movement of heated air (forced or unforced), and carries advantages in terms of flame control during the flammability assessments. The alternative of horizontal boards with side-venting encounters blocking (a serious problem) in many rack-mount configurations, as well as difficulties in filter maintenance.
There are examples of blatant disregard for this convention, such as the early Bay Networks BFRs, which had cards & mid-planes aligned with all 3 Cartesian coordinates, and fans blowing in orthogonal directions.

As a minor point, the probability of a component failure on the bottom-side of a horizontal board affecting the board directly beneath is typically much higher than for a failure on a vertically-oriented board affecting an adjacent board. Details, details.

To clarify on NEBS temperature testing, a typical switch box will undergo the NEBS environmental test between 0-55C inlet air if it is a single unit test. NEBS alternatively permits the inlet air range to be 0-50C at the bottom unit, provided there are 3 or more units stacked vertically.

Finally, as you stated, the RBOCs criteria for selecting a product does consider ease-of-use and familiarity of form factor, but weight that far below other criteria relating to features, performance, life-cycle cost (CapEx & OpEx), political factors, etc.

infrastructure 12/5/2012 | 12:38:00 AM
re: Procket Talk Turns Up rtfm had written about new reliability measures. .

Doesn't FERC demand such metrics, and these can be seen on EIA's website (a great administration, whose mandate is to disseminate information)?

Does FCC collect such numbers? For "voice" and/or data carriers? Are these public?

beowulf888 12/5/2012 | 12:37:56 AM
re: Procket Talk Turns Up John "the Internet Shrugged" Galt wrote of 911 networks...

"Yes, they do use two way and other radio networks in the field, but you can bet that they realy heavily on the good old PSTN."

Hate to burst your bubble, but have you actually looked at a 911 network lately? Sure the calls coming in are voice, but a lot of the intra-departmental communications are now TCP/IP. Not necessarily VoIP, but just plain-old e-messaging over TCP/IP. Indeed, TCP/IP is so prevalent in 911 networks that there a companies who make lucrative revenues supporting these data networks as contractors.

As for the 911 service charge, well that's passed on to the government (after the phone company extorts a percentage). County/Municipal governments run the 911 services, not the phone companies.


standardsarefun 12/5/2012 | 12:36:42 AM
re: Procket Talk Turns Up Actually there is a recent Lightreading Webinar that talked a lot about 5 9's and IP reliability.

See http://www.e-conference.com/li...

Unfortunately Procket was in stealth mode in Jan. and so they don't get mentioned.
tspoon 12/5/2012 | 12:35:26 AM
re: Procket Talk Turns Up Again, we violently agree.

As for Procket and LU. Pat is a fine executive, but neither she, O'Shea, Davidson and crew know how to run a profitable Systems intagrator business. I would run for cover If I were Procket. A reverse split and a prayer, there are much better partners to choose from, that unlike LU, did not tube partner resources and revenue with some of the same management in place as the bubble burst. As for Siemens. While Thomas Ganswindt is talking party line, do we really think that Siemens would allow thier channel to be canabolized by a LU, JNPR deal. I think the analyst from Pacific Growth, has it right. Procket wins either way. This late in the evaluation game, and it may take another few months, PN has thus proven advanced technology/Performance. If they launch with a few giant partners and several wins, with recovery being slow, all carriers and large enterprises will come to thier own conclusion on just how much money PN will help save them and make them. I think that PN is the next BIG THING. AS YOU SAY, THE OLD FASHION WAY. In time we will see If i am correct. I predict that eventually, LU will do the safe/wrong thing, and go with JNPR's old technology, which will be the beginning of the end for LU. Then the genius editors at LR will raise my rating above bugler, or like who cares. THE CUSTOMER MUST BE THE WINNER HERE, and Procket's CEO, Kruep, has shown at Redback, that thats what he is passionate about.
<<   <   Page 5 / 5
Sign In