x
DWDM

Metro DWDM Game Heats Up

Healthy competition is shaping up among Nortel Networks Corp. (NYSE/Toronto: NT), ONI Systems Inc. (Nasdaq: ONIS), and Ciena Corp. (Nasdaq: CIEN) in the metro DWDM market.

Earlier this week, Nortel announced upgrades to its Optera Metro 5200 DWDM platform. And new numbers from Dell'Oro Group show that Ciena is gaining on the top two players in the market: Nortel and ONI.

The latest version of the Optera Metro 5200, a product that’s been around for about two years, includes new hardware that will enable it to scale to 10 Gbit/s, which will allow it to support Sonet/SDH, OC192, STM64 and 10-gigabit Ethernet applications.

The addition of 10-Gbit/s functionality comes out of necessity, say some analysts. Competitors ONI and Ciena both have already announced 10 Gbit/s on their platforms.

"ONI has been shipping its 10-Gbit/s product for a couple of quarters at least,” says Rick Schafer, an analyst with CIBC World Markets. "That’s one of the differentiators between them. Nortel had to add 10 Gbit/s.”

This is a critical time in the metro DWDM market. For the first time in its short history, ONI has lost market share there. According to the Dell'Oro report published last week, ONI’s market share dropped to 26 percent in Q3 from 34 percent in Q2 (see Dell'Oro Plots Ups and Downs). Nortel kept its number one position with 37 percent of the market, the same as the previous quarter.

The biggest surprise is Ciena’s gain in market share. It was the only company to increase market share from Q2 to Q3. It jumped to 23 percent in Q3 from 18 percent in Q2. Ciena, which has a strong long-haul DWDM product, now seems to be making headway with its metro platform, MultiWave Metro. Even though the product has been around for a few years, competitors like Nortel have criticized it as a scaled-down version of the company’s long-haul product. But judging from these new numbers, carriers don’t seem to mind.

For the third quarter, the entire metro DWDM market declined about 25 percent, according to Dell'Oro. This is the first decline ever for this market. And the future doesn’t look much better. This year, the entire DWDM metro market is estimated to be $676 million, which includes actual numbers from the last three quarters and an estimate for the fourth quarter of 2001. In 2002, Dell'Oro expects the market to grow only about $12 million to $688 million.

Joe Padgett, director of marketing for optical metro for Nortel, says he isn’t worried about competition from Ciena or ONI. "They [ONI] are a novelty,” says Padgett. "They have one decent product out there today. A lot of our service providers have put them in the labs, but when you look at the numbers, we are still leading the market in deployments.”

Analysts and carriers see things a little differently. They applaud ONI for its technological prowess, but note that the product's real issue may be the price tag. During the past quarter, the cost game has played out in Nortel’s favor, particularly in Asia, where carriers are much more cost conscious than their North American counterparts.

"Where we’ve seen Nortel succeed is overseas,” says CIBC's Schafer. “They don’t have the same feature set as ONI, but sometimes the Asian carriers don’t need all that functionality."

Also hurting ONI is the fact that the company still doesn’t have its Osmine certification. This is important for companies selling to RBOCs. ONI officials placed new emphasis on the Osmine process in the last quarter's conference cakk, saying they would spend significant resources on it (see ONI Stock Takes a Hit). The company is also focusing on diversifying its customer. The company has depended largely on sales to competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs), which make up almost 50 percent of its total customer base.

Ciena could also run into trouble down the road as it tries to increase market share, because it hasn’t certified its metro product with Osmine either.

Nortel, on the other hand, announced last month that it has finished its Osmine certification, something the company says helped it land a deal as the primary provider of DWDM technology for SBC Communications Inc. (NYSE: SBC) under a multiyear metro optical contract.

— Marguerite Reardon, Senior Editor, Light Reading
http://www.lightreading.com
moguefett 12/4/2012 | 7:30:06 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up hey, maybe I am a true believer. But I didnt suggest you buy a thousand shares. Im in it for the excitement, not the money. My salary yields more than capital gains on any amount of shares of CORVIS would be worth.
As far as someones post reguarding my lack of knowledge and basis for BS proclamations, let me tell you...I make comparisons solely on fortified grade A, angus beef. Im there. And Im here, merely conveying the truth. Or is it that truth is lost in the translation. The rest of your life after you read this post is up to you. Just try to make it a good one while you can.
Love and Peace
gea 12/4/2012 | 7:30:20 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up Pigglywiggly wrote:

"So... if it's too hard, that implies that O-BLSR is too expensive and too complicated to deploy... yep, I agree with that."

In your post you seem to show that you are unaware of where commercial SONET BLSR deployment is at. The SONET BLSR is king in any backbone network throughout the world. Actually, there almost isn't another technology deployed in any numerically significant sense. And BLSR deployment in metro areas seems to be hitting the UPSR hard. I've seen some networks that used 2/BLSR in the metro and 4/BLSR in the backbone, and when I asked the NOC guys "where are your UPSRs?" They replied "what's a UPSR?". But of course, it'll be a long time before UPSR disappears from RBOC networks.

However, a SONET BLSR is a ferociously complex critter (RBOC=KISS...No.), if you've ever looked under the hood of a BLSR or the Telcordia standard, you'll may pass out when you see the K1K2 signaling going on. And that's just for starters. And each BLSR node is EXPENSIVE.

From this analysis, Pigglywiggly would conclude that no BLSRs would ever get deployed, but the fact is that they save LOTS of MONEY compared to UPSRs, both because of the shared protection bandwidth as well as the ability to run "extra" traffic over that bandwidth prior to a PS event.

ONI has basically developed an optical BLSR which is probably a LOT simpler than a SONET BLSR, and for high-wavelength count environments, its going to save a LOT OF MONEY over 1+1s, even though PER NODE its more expensive and a hell of a lot more complicated. So "simplicity" in 2001 doesn't mean a lot to carriers that want to cut costs, and are not exposed to the internal complexity of a product. They expect it to work.

And again, routers and ethernet switches don't like 1+1...they have no problem link aggregating the "working" and "protect" channel to get double the bandwidth, then sending the data over the surviving link in the event of a failure. 1+1 can't support this, but shared protection schemes can.


optblues 12/4/2012 | 7:30:25 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up Posted:
The hard part about BLSR is not building a system that offers it (relatively speaking, in comparison to all other facets of a DWDM system development), rather, it's managing QOS issues from the carrier side and dealing with the fact that you just gave up the combination of equipment and path redundancy afforded by UPSR. A line break is OK with BLSR, but a transmit failure just shut off all your traffic... I hope your truck rolls really fast.

===========================

This is not true. Optical UPSR and BLSR differences do not limit the protection of equipment failure at the Tx/Rx line side. I can protect both equally in both scenarios. In fact, most vendors are keen on the choice between Tx/Rx equipment failures and fiber/amp failures. The thing is, UPSR can easily be implemented with a simple 2:1 coupler and a dumb 2x1 switch. This doesnG«÷t protect the Tx/Rx equipment side but is the most cost effective method. If the user chooses to have dual Tx and Rx, then he can PAY for the protection. Likewise, OBLSR can provide equipment protection in a slightly modified form with two Tx units and two Rx units. In BLSR, the use of different wavelengths for the working and protection units and some couplers/switches do the job just as well.

IG«÷m telling you guys, it goes back to the traffic patterns and the equipment cost. If I can build a dirt cheap, simple to deploy and maintain OUPSR system and it half way meets your traffic patterns, then the providers will buy it over OBLSR. It is that simple. (Stock warrants aside).

Why do you think the RBOCs are so slow to change to new technologies? They have huge, huge systems and networks setup. Throwing a monkey wrench in the works really has a trickle down affect. This is the main reason why they tend to approve new products that behave the same way as the currently deployed systems, just with higher density and more interface options. RBOC=KISS.
pigglywiggly 12/4/2012 | 7:30:27 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up gea wrote:
"Optiblues I think stated things pretty accurately viz O-BLSR. I think this is also another reason why no other company has tried what ONI did: too hard, not worth it, and ONI's doing it."-
So... if it's too hard, that implies that O-BLSR is too expensive and too complicated to deploy... yep, I agree with that. If it's not worth it, uh, that means it's not worth it... yep, I think I could agree with that considering how many people are deploying (or rather, not deploying) O-BLSR now. And "ONI's doing it"... hmmm, Coke makes cola and sells a lot of it... does that mean nobody else is going to get in on the action if something sells?

gea also wrote:
"BUT, I would say that in a bunch of the newer networks I've seen, UPSR is marginal or non-existent"-
In it's place, what are they doing for protection? Not O-BLSR, until you can point to a significant number of networks that nobody else has yet to see using O-BLSR.

gea also wrote:
"So ONI ain't the greatest thing since sliced bread, but they ARE doing something no one else is doing, and something that is clearly advantageous in certain network scenarios."-
Just because no one else is doing something doesn't make it good, rather, perhaps it points to the fact that it is not worth doing. One entity alone doing something does make for nice marketing, and that has obviously worked. ONI has had O-BLSR long enough that some new product development from a competitor could be adopting it now if it's so great, but that is not happening. Also, since you can't point to too many people building those "certain network scenarios" that favor O-BLSR, I don't see too many vendors chomping at the bit to develop a technology that is not wanted. The hard part about BLSR is not building a system that offers it (relatively speaking, in comparison to all other facets of a DWDM system development), rather, it's managing QOS issues from the carrier side and dealing with the fact that you just gave up the combination of equipment and path redundancy afforded by UPSR. A line break is OK with BLSR, but a transmit failure just shut off all your traffic... I hope your truck rolls really fast.
gea 12/4/2012 | 7:30:50 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up Moguefett:
I guess you are a true believer type! I can also tell you don't really know very much about this industry. The arguments for all-optical are deep and complex, and really can't be discussed with someone who doesn't understand optical transport technology as it stands. Don't think for a moment that Guilder (whose stuff you've apparently been binging on like powdered donuts) understands optical transport. His books contains some critical errors. His religious zealotry (and yours too) will leave you shaky and sweaty after the blood sugar crash.

Unlike most people, however, I have had my hands on TRULY all-optical networks (ie, the MONET network), and from that alone I think a lot of us started to wonder if the merits of all optical were worth it. In addition, the issues of scalability seem to go away with recent advances in commercial silicon, and the usefulness of optical transparency may also go away after everything adopts SONET framing (Ethernet's already doing just that).

That said, despite the fact that i do not believe that Corvis is the future by any means, I recently bought up 1,000 shares of it. My main reasons were that Corvis does seem to understand why some might want/need to deploy all-optical, and they have built a series of products (and PR!)around that concept that seem to be fairly rational and self-consistent. In the unusual and greenfield networks where what Corivs delivers makes sense, then Corvis will be the clear and obvious choice for that customer. Unfotunately, there aren't many customers like that yet. OOPS! There aren't ANY customers like that yet. So the odds are that Corvis will flop, but if they don't then they will do very well.
Belzebutt 12/4/2012 | 7:31:00 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up Looks like Gary B. Smith made some major faux-pas if he actually convinced people that CORV owns the future. Either that or moguefett totally misunderstood him, take your pick.

What good is great technology on paper if you can't build it. The huge manufacturing and political issues that have been exposed on the CORV board are probably not the only problem either, given that CORV has so few customer(s).

(I realize that those CORV problems are to be taken with a grain of salt since they're just posts on a message board, but then again so is moguefett's post...)
Confucius 12/4/2012 | 7:31:01 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up With the implementation of an all optical core, there is no question CORVIS will own the Metro.

You're the second one to make that assertion, and the second one to neglect to offer any supporting arguments. The first question that comes to mind is "metro what?" Metro core? The "Metro" consists of a lot of different things, many of which Corvis has no product to address. Metro core? Maybe. Corvis may well get a decent piece of the metro core, but to declare Corvis to "own the metro" seems more than a bit premature (being as generous as possible, in the spirit of the season.)
poster 12/4/2012 | 7:31:03 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up moguefett:

you are talking out of your arse.
poster 12/4/2012 | 7:31:03 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up RHK usually has some good stuff, but as with any market research report, you have to take it with a grain of salt. they have been up front and very quick to downsize their numbers in the recession though.
LeCastor71 12/4/2012 | 7:31:04 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up Hi,

I'm wondering if people have any recommendations on the latest DWDM market forecasts?

Specifically I'm looking for something recent that reflects the carriers reduced CAPEX in these times and most importantly something that includes the Worldwide DWDM market with these splits:

a) Regional, LH and Metro growth numbers
b) EMEA, AP and NA segments

Preference is something out to 2006 but I'd be equally as happy with 2005. My main problem is the ones I usually see break their reports into Metro and LH as separate reports. When you add up the numbers to get a feel for the total, well let's say they just don't add up.

thanks for any direction/recommendations in this regard.

- LeCastor
moguefett 12/4/2012 | 7:31:05 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up Credit Suisse First Boston is having the the live web cast technology conference involving alot great conversation if anyone is interested.
I just listened to Gary B. Smith CEO CIENA, for an hour its so unquestionably apparent to me that CORVIS Corporation owns next-gen networking!
CIENA might be the only hope for competing with CORVIS if they can effectively follow their big brothers footsteps.
Every thing he said about current market conditions and what CIENA is trying to do and what they want to accomplish in the future is a carbon COPY of what Dr. Dave has long ago addressed and.. is doing now. Its the absolute truth.
Its so funny to see 60 some-odd posts and you folks are still talkin about companies like ONI and Nortel surviving in metro or LH...hee,hee. Of course its possible, but not likely anymore.
Have you ever heard the expression its the imitators not the originators that get the credit.
Well the CORVIS Crew has way to many patents in the firm that state otherwise. And I promise competition will have a very hard time not filing chapter 13 in coming months.
With the implementation of an all optical core, there is no question CORVIS will own the Metro. Its might seem quite foolish to make such bold statements, but as far as whats on the public dinner table....its a no-brainer.
A very valid point Mr. Smith made was that given the current capex reduction, carriers are simply trying to squeeze as much shelf life as possible out of there existing products and its too soon to indicate when they will be ready to evolve...or revolve!
Another statement he made in wich I partially disagree with is that the evolution of new End user Applications will play a critical role in how fast carriers adopt new technology. I differ in that philosiphy because I feel that if there is a Carrier who wants to position themself to capitalize on the inevitable bandwidth growth(sooner or later)of tommorrow, then they need the pipelines to support it today. To me that only make sense because how efficient, and fun can these applications be if existing networks can barely support voice traffic, let alone vid conferencing, interactive gaming, and what about the possibilities of virtual reality? Look how fast we have changed the earth in the past 200 years...in the past 100 years...in the last 20. How about in the last year.
Medicine and Telecomm are experiencing major advances as we speak. What I believe to be the predominant factor in the absence of investment confidence, because were asking ourselves "who can we confidently say will survive these rapid changes, and target future applications effectively" The answer today is quite commonly that very few of these companies exist.
I feel strongly that CORVIS is one of few companies that has demonstrated confidently and effectively the potential to have a global effect on the improvement of communications equipment. An almost non-existant quality among competitors. And to me, thats more substantial than a few contract wins right now...
Oh yeah were we suppose to be talking about dwdm metro products? I guess none of you have read up on OCS. Well, ovua and good luck.
gea 12/4/2012 | 7:31:06 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up Actually, outside of Metro regions BLSR entirely dominates. Until recently, UPSR was king in the metro, but that is changing rapidly. In fact, I've already heard of OC-192 BLSRs deployed in some urban areas. So the era of the UPSR might be drawing to a close. In addition, I have found that very few 1+1 optical protection modules are normally sold in conjunction with most metro DWDM systems, but I'll have to ask my analyst friends.
poster 12/4/2012 | 7:31:14 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up very good descriptions of OBLSR and it's issues. I'm impressed. OBLSR/wavelength re-use is a cool feature, but network engineering complexity and power budget issues increase exponentially with the # of nodes.

I would say that UPSR protection isn't going anywhere anytime soon. in fact, it's my understanding that it's the protection scheme still deployed in the vast majority of transport networks (SONET and/or DWDM layers, of course).

another question: is OBLSR feature available from ONI now?
befuddled 12/4/2012 | 7:31:14 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up Have we forgotten Qwest (Tellium) and Williams (Sycamore) here? At least they got options when options were worth something.
betterfastercheaper 12/4/2012 | 7:31:19 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up
Let's not kid ourselves: those days of investing in promising vendors for the IPO upside are gone.

In addition, saying that ROI, cost, port density, or any other criteria determines the outcome is an oversimplification of a complex process involving many stakeholders with varied interests. This is an artifact of dealing with real human beings.

These issues include, but are not limited to:
The salesperson
The decision maker
The company management
The investors
Their reputations
Performance
Reliability
Stability
Scaleability
Acquisition Cost
Maintenance Cost
Replacement Cost
Expected life of technology
The purchasing process
etc.

Each organization will place different weights on each of these qualities, and each vendor will place emphasis in different areas (Product Management's role). In addition, each company/carrier/xSP will have a different acquisition process.

You can look at the process as if it were a dating game, so let's rephrase the question with this in mind:

"How do men and women choose a spouse?"

The best and most appropriate answer might very well be:

"Very Carefully"

:)
lo_mein_noodles 12/4/2012 | 7:31:20 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up Yes Williams...( sorry, I was reading something about level 3 as I was writing!)
fleshpeddler 12/4/2012 | 7:31:21 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up
i heard that they look for RELIABILITY and SUPPORT at a price point that helps them make a profit. oh, and not having been screwed before by the people they are buying from helps.

----------------------------------------

in general, i'd like to know what carriers look for when selecting one vendors' box over the other. i guess to the untrained eye, that most of these boxes seem the same.
Vesting 12/4/2012 | 7:31:22 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up Are you sure you're not talking about Williams?
lo_mein_noodles 12/4/2012 | 7:31:22 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up Hey lets not forget the most important item, Stock warrants/grants etc..isn't that how Level 3 always made the call?
sailor 12/4/2012 | 7:31:22 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up In my experience, most of the features vendors add like MPLS are still checklist items. Good if you have them, but they may never be used.

Better give them:
1) Lower operating cost.
2) Much better port density for the cost.
3) Easy transition from where they are.
edgygirl2001 12/4/2012 | 7:31:23 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up 1. When the carriers conduct RFP, all boxes donot appear the same.

example question: Do your box support MPLS on 11/1/01? (yes/no)

2. When the carrier runs same set of tests on different boxes in the lab, all boxes donot behave the same.
johnjohn 12/4/2012 | 7:31:24 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up in general, i'd like to know what carriers look for when selecting one vendors' box over the other. i guess to the untrained eye, that most of these boxes seem the same.
maceou 12/4/2012 | 7:31:24 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up $$$. If you can't directly tie revenue to it, the architecture must reduce the capital it takes to deploy the services over existing architectures. If the business case doesn't work, it doesn't matter how many features a box has. That doesn't mean you aren't ready to deploy once price points are more favorable or high bandwidth demands increase in the metro where WDM is more efficient.

Functionality wise, the more straight forward the architecture the better (and less questions you get when you roll it out)
gea 12/4/2012 | 7:31:25 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up Optiblues I think stated things pretty accurately viz O-BLSR. I think that this is also another reason why no other company has tried what ONI did: too hard, not worth it, and ONI's doing it.

BUT, I would say that in a bunch of the newer networks I've seen, UPSR is marginal or non-existent. Does this mean internet traffic has changed traffic patterns so that UPSR (or other 1+1) is no longer as useful? If so, ONI may have some growth room. If not, ONI's cost and complexity is going to be such that many operators will avoid it if they can.

So ONI ain't the greatest thing since sliced bread, but they ARE doing something no one else is doing, and something that is clearly advantageous in certain network scenarios.
optblues 12/4/2012 | 7:31:28 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up Given that these networks are used in metro applications, we need to look at the advantages gained from BLSR vs. UPSR. The real advantage lies in the traffic pattern. If the traffic pattern is more of a star architecture then BLSR is much more efficient. If the traffic is hubbed to one location, then UPSR is the clear winner.

That said UPSR is the simplest architecture to implement, especially optically. BLSR heavily relies on inter node SW communications and control to initiate and perform switches, where as UPSR is more or less FW or HW initiated at the module level. We all know that BLSR SW switching sucks in general (you try to complete the first release and see how long it takes), and is inherently less reliable than UPSR. Moreover, BLSR requires some fast amplifier gain control or the use of dummy wavelengths to keep the ring happy. UPSR could generally care less about the line as the wavelengths donG«÷t change dynamically.

OBLSR is an impressive accomplishment that will gain ground depending on the traffic patterns.
prefer_to_lurk 12/4/2012 | 7:31:31 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up
O-BLSR sure sounds good on paper -- and kudos to ONI for developing it -- but it does have some real-world drawbacks.

- Since traffic is "wrapped" back from the point of failure, link engineering is a real headache. You have to add amplification (and potentially regen) to account for potential failure scenarios.

- You lose the ability to enable protection on a per wavelength basis (it has to be performed per band).

- The need for an optical switch matrix introduces additional dB losses (which again leads to increased need for amplification).

ptl
Vesting 12/4/2012 | 7:31:31 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up The problem with ONI's optical BLSR is that, unlike SONET BLSR where an optical interface is facing CW and CCW on a ring and timeslots are switched, ONI is switching the output of a single laser from CW to CCW. Single points of failure such as this scenario, have never been acceptable in carrier networks. This protection scheme protects against fiber cuts but does nothing to protect against equipment (Laser) failures.
gea 12/4/2012 | 7:31:32 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up Well, I don't have a lot of time but a lot of the advantages of OBLSR are direct analogies to the TDM version. For one, you get shared bandwidth, which these days means a lower cost than 1+1 architectures in many networks. This is particularly true in the optical domain as ONI has done it, because a single fiber switch allows you to move the entire optical multiplex section from working into protect fibers. That's a BIG cost savings when compared to 1+1 architectures for anything greater than a few wavelengths.

In addition, you can actually USE the protection bandwidth until a protection switching events comes around (actually, is there someone from ONI who can tell us if their system allows for "extra" optical traffic?). That's otherwise lost income. 1+1 simply does not allow for that.

Finally, one advantage I don't hear about that often is that shared protection architectures are much more friendly to data than 1+1, as 1+1 forces you to duplicate everything. Telephony doesn't mind duplication, but data connections make use of that extra fiber to send more traffic, then throttle back low-QoS stuff on the surviving link in the event of a break. For a ring of routers, for instance, it becomes prohibitive to do this with 1+1 architectures.

At this point, you'd probably ask "if OBLSR is so great, then why doesn't everyone do it, smartypants?" The answer is that it's HARD. Shared protection needs bidirectional switching, which implies signaling between nodes during a switching event. In addition, because the entire multiwavelength signal is switched, you can have racing issues when one or more channels have their own protection. ONI was always aware of those issues, and either solved them or PR-ed them.

How's THAT for a short answer? I swear, Lightreading should start payin' me for these posts!
edgecore 12/4/2012 | 7:31:33 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up gea,

Can we get a few paragraphs on the awesome"ness" that is OBLSR?

-EC
gea 12/4/2012 | 7:31:34 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up Pigglywiggly wrote:

"They offer optical BLSR for some capacity sharing in protected systems, and have big software. What else am I missing?"

What more do you want? An "Optical BLSR" is a pretty damned ambitious thing to attempt. Indeed, they're the only company I know that has it. And if you don't know why "O-BLSR" is significant when compared to 1+1 architectures, then you're probably in the wrong industry.

As for Poster's comments about the Ciena Metro box being a re-work of their long haul product, he must have been thinking about the now-discontinued Ciena Firefly. That was a point-to-point 24 wavelength unamplified system that used AWG muxs and demuxes, and 2R regenerating transponders. Arguably, a re-work of the Ciena 1600, but arguably not: it was optimized for cost.

Almost at the same time the Firefly was available, Ciena was offering the Metro, which is an entirely different product, being a true ring-based product. In addition, its got optical 1+1 protection, and TDM transponders. An ahead-of-its-time product when it first came out around '98, I kinda thought it was going to out-sell the optera Metro, but i guess it didn't.
pigglywiggly 12/4/2012 | 7:31:35 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up All talk leads to ONI being the outright technology leader in metro DWDM. Can I have a specific or two here? They offer optical BLSR for some capacity sharing in protected systems, and have big software. What else am I missing? If someone could compare ONLINE to OPTera Metro and show me significant technological advantages, sufficient to justify the common claim of ONI being superior, I will be impressed. I know both products, and I don't see the compelling basis for these claims.

I'm not crapping on ONI, but I genuinely want to see what I'm apparently missing. Just sweating the details.

I don't work for ONI or Nortel, and you could argue I don't do much work at all.
Belzebutt 12/4/2012 | 7:31:35 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up Lookie here:

http://www.lightreading.com/bo...
http://www.lightreading.com/bo...

Looks like not only were you completely wrong on the OPTera Metro, you were also completely wrong on the Ciena box. I find it amusing that you pulled such an attitude on me given that people who know all of these products don't share you (ignorant) views.
whose 12/4/2012 | 7:31:35 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up The best technology seldom is the winner...
pigglywiggly 12/4/2012 | 7:31:36 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up I agree. There market share is not near that of the top 3, but their product is not so different and arguably less cumbersome than the ONLINE box.

By Sorrento's statements, they have been shipping OC-192 longer than ONI.
skeptic 12/4/2012 | 7:31:37 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up
They have about as much a chance as anyone else in
the space does. Their problems are:

1) they are trying to do too much (multiple
products)
2) Their big product isn't out yet.
3) Its not clear what problem they are trying to
solve with their small product (the ADM) other
than to create the impression of revenue for
the company.

but in spite of everything, they could still do
ok. They are very good at creating an
impression of success with the outside world
that is far ahead of where the company actually
is.
poster 12/4/2012 | 7:31:37 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up >They are very good at creating an
impression of success with the outside world
that is far ahead of where the company actually
is.
>

hasn't this been the fundamental problem with the entire industry in recent history?
johnjohn 12/4/2012 | 7:31:38 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up Chromatis is dead dodo, I mean Rolando
aurora 12/4/2012 | 7:31:38 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up Do you even work in the DWDM industry?

If you bothered looking 1 time at Ciena's Metro product, you would see it is not anything like their long-haul product.

Ciena's MultiWave Metro product fits in an ETSI rack. The connectors are on the front. It provides 1+1 protection on the ring or on a linear span. It provides arbitrary endpoints on the ring or span (a logical mesh topology). So in fact, this product is NOT a re-work of Ciena's long haul product.

P.S. Anyone claiming to be done with OSMINE must be halting any significant enhancements on their product.
erbiumfiber 12/4/2012 | 7:31:39 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up Anyone know how that patent/trade secret litigation is coming along? It's been about a year now. Also, if anyone knows the patent numbers involved (doesn't show up on the Internet docket sheet from the PACER system).

Thanks in advance if anyone has this.
purzel 12/4/2012 | 7:31:39 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up didn't you forget to mentioned Sorrento Networks !
They have been shipping the OC192 since the beginning of the year and have a very good costumer list (AT&T Broadband, Deutsche Telekom, Cox, UPC, Looking Glass)

Alex
edgecore 12/4/2012 | 7:31:40 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up >NT is like an old man waiting for dying.

It sometimes seems that way, which makes me gag on my NT at 118.00 CDN!

The incumbents seem to control the buying cycles (7 incumbents represented 75% of equipment spending in 2001, going up to 84% in 2002...or something like that, I heard it in a presentation which I really cannot remmeber very well).

Does this mean we will fall into a dinosaur mindset of "nobody ever got fired for buying NT, LU, ALA and Cisco..." from the incumbents...

Won't this also stiffle the creativity and the survivability of the networking startups...and give us painflly long buying cycles?

EC
LightMan 12/4/2012 | 7:31:42 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up (eom)
Belzebutt 12/4/2012 | 7:31:42 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up NT is like an old man waiting for dying...

CIEN, as some one said before, basically does NOT have a metro product, but only a bulky & expensive version of their existing long haul WDM systems...


Funny that both of them just gained market share (esp. CIEN) while ONI lost... Maybe NT and CIEN have more talent and tech than some give them credit for?
opticalPassion 12/4/2012 | 7:31:43 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up NT is like an old man waiting for dying. They are losing way too many important people to companies such as ONI. They can not develope what the market wants on time, because they don't have the right talents and they can NOT do things fast enough. I heard that it toke ONI a few months at most to have OC-192 working, but rather takes Nortel 2 years to do the same.

CIEN, as some one said before, basically does NOT have a metro product, but only a bulky & expensive version of their existing long haul WDM systems. I can not imagine how their "metro" products will play in the long run.

opticalPassion 12/4/2012 | 7:31:43 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up I heard ONI has the CWDM based products shipping, - the product they acquired from Finisar.
Belzebutt 12/4/2012 | 7:31:44 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up actually I made a generalization about both nortel and ciena based strictly on ciena being a retrofitted long haul box

And I pointed out that this wasn't the case for the Metro, it has NOTHING at all to do with LH boxes and it is not retrofitted version of anything. You did say that about BOTH the NT and Ciena box. It's 2 years old as "the metro", and it was a recent product when it was acquired. The fact that I made one "gross generalization" on the date/name doesn't excuse the fact that you were completely wrong on the Metro with your original statement.

As for bitter tone... you may want to re-read your post.
poster 12/4/2012 | 7:31:45 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up ButtHead:

>That's not a clarification, that's a retraction.

actually I made a generalization about both nortel and ciena based strictly on ciena being a retrofitted long haul box, not thinking much of the distinction since the bottom line result is the same: they are both inferior, first generation metro DWDM systems and don't compete technically with ONIs online. since someone else was knowledgeable enough to point that out, I give them credit.

however, what is really interesting here is your defensive and even abrasive tone, as well as your blatant ignorance about the subject at hand. that's been made painfully obvious to everyone by your comment that the multiwave metro product is only 2 years old and accusing me of "changing my whole story" and trying to "slam nortel and ciena any way I can". anyone who is knowledgeable on this subject will be able to verify that the multiwave metro is largely a ciena long-haul box with a scaled down architecture; low channel count, no amps, huge footprint/power consumption/price. I am not slamming ciena or nortel in any way - just simply stating they are behind in their metro DWDM strategy and their products are inferior to ONI. the story has not changed one bit and overall they are the two strongest players in the optical sector. in case you live in a closet, this isn't news but rather has been a well known fact for some time - even nortel and ciena have admitted it outright to analysts! your defensiveness, accusations, bitter tone and general lack of knowledge speak volumes about YOUR agenda. lighten up - and check your facts.

Litewave 12/4/2012 | 7:31:47 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up Author: maceou
I am surprised that CWDM has not been mentioned so far. Neither ...
The lasers are cheaper and the spacing is more forgiving..


As you rightly pointed out, the issue is primarily oe of economics.

On paper CWDM, has technology and economics behind it, however, in the real-world, vendors like Lucent, Nortel and Alcatel have been willing to compromise on their margins in order to buy market share.

Vendors like ADVA and LuxN don't have the staying power in a bloodthirsty market.

How long will this continue? Your guess is as good as mine.
maceou 12/4/2012 | 7:31:48 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up I am surprised that CWDM has not been mentioned so far. Neither Nortel nor Ciena has it. ONI does have it. The lasers are cheaper and the spacing is more forgiving. Who really needs 32 protected wavelengths in the metro? Even if they do, is it so terrible to light up another pair? What does everyone think about the startups which are moving from the access to the metro core? Adva, LuxN?
Vesting 12/4/2012 | 7:31:51 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up The claim that the OPTera Metro is only two years old is a gross inaccuracy. Nortel closed the deal with Cambrian in December 1998. The product technology was at least a year old then. This product is close to 4 years old, not 2. Anyone who has taken a close look at both the OPTera and ONLINE boxes can tell that ONI didn't copy anyone's technology. Yes the OPTera box has OSMINE, which is the only reason any RBOC's are even looking at it. But there aren't any of them buying a lot of it now are they?

The OPTera Metro box's original backplane will not support 10G. Either they are changing out the backplane, which will not be compatible with existing systems, (that would hurt) or they have put some kluge configuration together where all of the intelligence is on the 10 G interface which would severely restrict the number of interfaces they could deploy in a box. Customers are looking to condense space not expand it.

Ciena's metro solution is only gaining strength because of their established relationships. The box is definitely a scaled down long haul box with added software.

The ONLINE solution is extremely cumbersome to deploy and maintain. Ask anyone who has evaluated it.

The real problem is that Nortel, Ciena and ONI are all buying their modules from the same suppliers. Packaging and software are the only differentiating factors. I would look for some truly next generation solutions to come along. The metro market still has not really taken off. Don't ignore Cisco, Lucent or some of the new startups. They might just surprise everyone.


BTW, I don't work for Nortel, Ciena or ONI either.
HarveyMudd 12/4/2012 | 7:31:52 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up Of the three players, Nortel, Ciena and ONI Systems, Nortel Networks is definitely the leader among all DWDM bvendors.

ONI does not have a market within the USA as is commonly believed. The company laid off about 100 of its employees. Since ONI is still not ONI certified, no carrier in the US would buy ONI's DWDM systems.

ONI has sold in small number to foreign carriers, but these sales alone cannot salvage ONI. Its network management system is weak and not fully integrated with the OSSes.

Since the entire market for DWDMs is estimated to be $690 million, even a market share of 25% cannot salvage ONI from its down fall.

Ciena would continue to increase its market share at the expense of ONI. Since many CLECS have disappeared, the market does noy bright for ONI.

It is doubtful if ONI's network management can be integrated woth the RBOCs can be integrated with the Operations Support Systems. This alone would hurt the ONI chances.
Litewave 12/4/2012 | 7:31:54 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up Its interesting to note that in Nortel's press release on the soon-to-be available 10G support on the OM5200 they claim its part of a family that includes "next generation SONET" solutions.

http://www.nortelnetworks.com/...

Could someone tell me what "next generation" SONET solutions Nortel currently has?
Belzebutt 12/4/2012 | 7:31:55 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up let me clarify: yes optera did come from Cambrian acquisition.

That's not a clarification, that's a retraction.

no I don't have an agenda and don't work for any of these companies. I just know how to face the facts.

Obviously you had your facts all wrong (on the Metro) and you got rightfully slammed for it. From calling the Metro product line a retrofitted long-haul box to calling it a "first generation box" (read: mature product, although it's just 2 years old) you basically changed your whole story, and you're clearly trying to slam both Nortel and Ciena any way you can.
poster 12/4/2012 | 7:31:56 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up let me clarify: yes optera did come from Cambrian acquisition. multiwave metro mostly retro-fitted old CIENA long-haul box. in both cases, first generation metro DWDM equipment, which can't compete technically/performance with the online. the only way they are able to compete is by price.

moral of the story: they will not be able to remain competitive with inferior products.

no I don't have an agenda and don't work for any of these companies. I just know how to face the facts.

whose 12/4/2012 | 7:31:59 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up does anyone have the latest on the Nortel lawsuit against ONI for pilfering its technology?
edgecore 12/4/2012 | 7:32:00 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up I don't work for NT, so correct me if I am wrong, but I recollect that:

Optera Metro 5200 came from the Cambrian acquisition, which also delivered Don Smith to Nortel.

Optera LH stuff is the evolution of the in house OC48 and OC192 products

Optera ULH Stuff (i.e. 4000) is the Qtera product

Optera Connection Managers are mostly in house stuff, except for the PX which is the X Ros acquisition.

EC
dodo 12/4/2012 | 7:32:00 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up Right on the money ( or the loonie)
davbert 12/4/2012 | 7:32:00 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up edgecore has it bang-on!

Another x-nortel

PS - I think it's stupid for Joe to call the Online a novelty - the market has deemed it a serious product.
spont 12/4/2012 | 7:32:01 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up I think I totally agree with Mr. Belzebutt. OPTera 5200 is definitely not a retro-fitted long-haul box.
Or the original poster simply has no clue, or he has his own agenda.
poster 12/4/2012 | 7:32:08 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up stawmc: thanks for adding some intelligence to the analysis, which should have been included in the original article.

xnortel: I agree totally. nortel is just bitter becuase ONI is a bunch of ex-nortel guys who are now eating their lunch in the metro market.

these product announcements are not by any means next generation features. they are just the bare minimum required to keep them from getting laughed out of the sales meetings by engineering. the optera and the multiwave products are still both legacy long-haul boxes retro-fitted for the metro.

I wonder what the margin of error is for this report and how that would affect some of these numbers. as for the numbers in this report, I think they are misleading based on the current economic climate and the sept attacks. when things come back, the metro numbers will be the first to reverse - and will do so sharply. as soon as the market returns, ONI will runaway with it. they do need to diversify their customer base a little, which they realize, and get through OSMINE. once that happens, and it will in time, game over.

I don't work for ONI. gobble gobble.

h 12/4/2012 | 7:32:08 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up
they have this "refurbished" product can EON...
"enhanced optical networking", which is a line
system...for some it maybe known as the 40/80G product line, which is now branded and sold as a totally new metro solution...
optical_leaders 12/4/2012 | 7:32:08 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up Not if it is going to come back from the dead - was killed in product rationalisation.

"God" boxes have no place in a substantial portion of todays metro market and this will continue for people who try to have a "one stop shop".
Belzebutt 12/4/2012 | 7:32:08 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up the optera and the multiwave products are still both legacy long-haul boxes retro-fitted for the metro.

You really have no clue. I don't know about the multiwave but your statement about the OPTera Metro 5200 is completely incorrect.
Belzebutt 12/4/2012 | 7:32:09 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up Looks like some never learn.And this comment coming from a Mktg .

let's wait and see.............

Some had the same arrogant comments for the LH


Why don't you tell us what you would expect a Mktg guy from one company to say about a competitor? Do you expect praise and compliments? It's ONI's job to praise their own product. Maybe you think they need help from NT?
ben35bates 12/4/2012 | 7:32:10 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up Dell'Oro later revised their original second quarter NT market share estimate to 37 per cent,the same level they reported for Q3 in the Metro DWDM market. NT had 49 per cent of the market in Q1. Total sales for the sector in Q3 were about $150M, down 25 per cent sequentially and also well below Q1 sales.
The only horse that is closing ground in this depressing race is Ciena. They are just a nose behind ONI.
Probably the more interesting race is traditional Metro gear (Sonet/SDH) which is still by far the biggest chunk of the market. Does anybody have any market research numbers here? It's much more diverse market with lots of players like LU, Fujitsu, ALA, also having pieces of the pie.

dgroves0 12/4/2012 | 7:32:10 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up Isn't Corvis the best of the breed for this type of equipment. Are they making any inroads?
Rolandx63 12/4/2012 | 7:32:10 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up Could someone please comment on the positioning of Chromatis' DWDM system in the Metro market. Do they have market share at all??
edgecore 12/4/2012 | 7:32:13 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up Given the legal tension between NT and ONI, I find it ironic, I mean funny, that ONI's Online 9000 product supports 33 protected wavelengths, whereas the Optera Metro 5200 support 32 protected wavelengths...an extra little shot in the ribs from ONI!

EC
dodo 12/4/2012 | 7:32:14 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up Looks like some never learn.And this comment coming from a Mktg .

let's wait and see.............

Some had the same arrogant comments for the LH
Optical_talk 12/4/2012 | 7:32:16 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up Lightreading reported Nortel Q2 Metro DWDM share was 34.6%. See the following link:

http://www.lightreading.com/do...

Based on this, Nortel actually gained 2.4% market share to 37% in Q3.

xnortel 12/4/2012 | 7:32:16 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up It strikes me that Mr. Padgett's comment to the effect that ONI is a "novelty" is not only stupid, but arrogant and condescending. This from a company whose stock has plummeted from $85 per share to $8.50 per share. The same brilliant management is apparently still resident.
stavvmc 12/4/2012 | 7:32:17 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up Here's the rub -- overall metro shipments were down 25% in Q3 from Q2, according to Dell'Oro. That means that Nortel with a steady 37% actually saw it sales fall 25% sequentially. So while Ciena's market share grew, its metro sales actually fell but to to a lesser degree than other Nortel and ONI. ONI's fell faster than the market decline, as some of its customers evaporated and its financial report suggested.
dbasnett 12/4/2012 | 10:50:10 PM
re: Metro DWDM Game Heats Up A friend of mine has worked for two major mfgs. The technical process at one of the former ILEC's is:
1 - Give them your box
2 - Pay them $250 / hour to test it

And testing means they test EVERYTHING.
HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE