x
Optical/IP

Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR!

Following a leaked memo from Metro Ethernet Networks president Phillppe Morin, Nortel Networks Ltd. today emailed journalists to say it has decided to "refocus" its investment from Carrier Ethernet Switch/Routers (CESRs) to next-generation packet optical transport equipment.

In a statement sent to Light Reading, Nortel says it is cutting back on the money it puts behind its Metro Ethernet Manager (MEM) products, Metro Ethernet Services Unit 1800s, and Metro Ethernet Routing Switch 8600s.

To clarify, Nortel will still sell these bits of kit, but it will no longer have any big new features for, or revisions to, the CESR product lines, outside of a few periodic maintenance releases.

Why? Morin's memo offers a clue: "The overall market for Carrier Ethernet is not growing at anticipated rates and that will only worsen with the global economic downturn. We will continue to invest and increase our focus on maintaining our leadership in Optical."

Nortel says it will still serve, support, and ship products to its Carrier Ethernet installed base -- and it says that the CESR decision doesn't impact its Ethernet access and aggregation products, or its Enterprise ERS 8600 portfolio.

Nortel says it will focus its packet-optical and former CESR development dollars into two areas. First, it will keep adding packet capabilities to its Optical Multiservice Edge 6500 and Optical Metro 5000 series platforms. And it will invest in metro Ethernet access and aggregation solutions, as well as staying committed to its partners that make customer premises Ethernet gear (including ANDA Networks Inc. , Axerra Networks Inc. , and others).

"We are not abandoning our Carrier Ethernet technology innovation, but simply focusing our Carrier Ethernet investment away from the switch/router segment," Nortel's statement to Light Reading says. "This decision supports the goal to make Nortel a more focused company."

In his leaked memo, Morin's closing paragraph hinted at the jobs toll this move might take: "Even though this is the right business decision, I realize it's more tough news for employees and will impact the Carrier Ethernet team."

— Phil Harvey, Editor-in-Chief, Light Reading

heretoday 12/5/2012 | 4:09:38 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! I love babpipes... maybe with a rendition of "Danny Boy" for a eulogy.....

Since NT is all about half truths... maybe they'll only sell 1/2 of each division. That would be fun sorting out.

inauniversefarfaraway 12/5/2012 | 4:09:41 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! Remember our little discussion that bonuses were just quiet money or parting gifts:

http://www.ottawabusinessjourn...

Maybe some bagpipe music would be appropriate...
hyperunner 12/5/2012 | 4:09:44 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! LOL.

I agree with odo. Creagh, I can imagine all the guys who are hard at work on OBS just cringing at your attempt to hype the technology.

One day I hope OBS will mean more than just Optical B.S. :-) That day is not here yet!

hR.
Pete Baldwin 12/5/2012 | 4:09:48 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! Odo - data outburstswitching sounds like an excellent technology foundation for a startup!

You should trademark it and patent something (anything!).... tell people it's "Green" and you could probably get funding even in these times!
rahat.hussain 12/5/2012 | 4:09:49 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! in the case of sailboat v. creagh, we the jury find in favor of sailboat.

case closed.

odo <-- where o.d.o stands for optical data outburstswitching
^Eagle^ 12/5/2012 | 4:09:50 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! lol... Creagh,

You are so mistaken. I did not forget anything about your original post or point.

Your point was to try to assert that the older way was dying and the new way was emerging... and that the solution was this photonic burst swithing.

Actually the move Nortel made had nothing to do this burst switching (which you know) and is more in keeping with what everyone is doing: converging transport to a common model of ethernet transport everywhere.. optics, copper, LH, local.. campus, everywhere.

However, you took it a step further and asserted that this trend was pointing to the new winning architecture would be this burst switching.

I think that is a leap. Reaching a conclusion based on prior ASSUMPTIONS and extrapolating from data a meaning that is not inherently there... and can only be found if you come from your pre-conceived assumptions / beliefs.

I simply asked you for any evidence that your assertions were based on reality and real market forces as opposed to wishful "slideware" or "marketecture"....

Classic responses from you.

Oh well. I was hoping to actually learn something of merit.

not just another marketing fellow pumping his own agenda.

sailboat
Creagh 12/5/2012 | 4:09:50 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! Sailboat, rest assured you will learn something. I cannot open your eyes any further. You will have to do the digging. Momentum will not be wide of the mark. Here is what I would predict: a major & deepening pull back on conventional network upgrade carrier spending for the very reasons alluded to in my original posting. Nortel is just part of a much bigger wholesale change in its early stages. Just because I refuse to show you exactly where to look does not imply that the initial stages of that change are not almost upon us. Just maybe not on your backdoor yet.
Creagh 12/5/2012 | 4:09:51 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! Sailboat..I will of course in due course. You forget that while things will materialise for you and satisfy your curiousity that the original context of my comment had to do with a major trend shift away from independent ethernet switched layer (aka Nortel's announcement)to an integrated ethernet and optical transport layer 2 type solution.
^Eagle^ 12/5/2012 | 4:09:53 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! Creagh,

Lol... that was my point entirely. YOU THOUGHT your post was fine. Except that you did not answer my question. You keep flogging this technology. but cannot point to a SINGLE instance of it being deployed.. by anyone.

And (laughing even harder now)... your assumption of who I am and what my interests are is so far off the mark that I almost dropped my coffee with my mirth.

No, it is not your job to do certain things. But when you publicly post in an open forum and consistently push a particular technology focus but give NO supporting evidence that it actually works as promised and no evidence of market traction, you have opened yourself up to questions challenging your assertions. Until you provide some evidence.. ANY evidence... that the solution works and proves in... you will be labeled as you are... a simple market "pumper".

This is not an unreasonable challenge given your assertion that this photonic burst switching is the winning architecture and solution for the marketplace for optical transport.

I also find it humorous how you always look at market news and due to your own filters in your thinking you always seem to believe that the news points to some kind of trend that requires your technology to "fix" the market or the network or the carrier, or what ever. Pretty obvious to a thinking person that you are stuck in your perception or your agenda for your products and not willing to see reality as it is clouded by our tinted glasses.

anyway, I tire of this conversation.

Come back when you have ANY evidence of ANY market acceptance of this solution. I said ANY. I did not say it must be a Tier 1.

sailboat
Creagh 12/5/2012 | 4:09:54 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! I thought my previous reply was fine - rationale. It is not my business to tell anyone exactly where to look. I understand that many people have careers that are bound up in legacy networks and that is naturally a worry & concern. I get the sense that you work in a carrier environment perhaps you should check with your peers in other T1 carriers ??
davallan 12/5/2012 | 4:10:05 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! OK, understood. If you want a slightly contrarian opinion, you know where to go...

cheers
D
chechaco 12/5/2012 | 4:10:06 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! Hi Davallan,
I don't have technological preferences but I was just pointing out that co-ps is better suited for carriers in general, and Carrier Ethernet in particular. Said that, I'm closely looking into MPLS-TP development to see what comes out of JWT work.
Regards
davallan 12/5/2012 | 4:10:07 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! Hi Chechaco:

I take it from your comment that you do not consider CL-PS and CO-PS to be complementary..?
By that critieria I assume you also consider both T-MPLS and MPLS-TP to be a complete waste of space...as you clearly priviledge CL-PS operation only.

And not to belabor a point, but even PBB with connectivity 1 across a given network (consequence of STP operation) could be said to exhibit more CO than CL behavior. Single symmetrical come and go path...

But you may want to also look at 802.1aq, which is IMO an evolution of PBT but as an STP replacement for multipoint...again with high degree of commonality across the technology base...

D

chechaco 12/5/2012 | 4:10:08 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! "There is about 99% commonality between the two."
But that 1% makes all the difference between cl-ps (PBB) and co-ps (PBT). The latter can be used as transport, the former has application only in enterprise and access. And that is why some entertain PBB-VPLS model (e.g. extensions to VPLS PE model for PBB).
And another note ...
Couple posts ago Carrier Ethernet was put as opposing to VPLS. I don't see it this way. I look at Carrier Ethernet more from MEF perspective, from a point of service delivered rather than enabling technology. VPLS is just one technology to deliver, implement the Carrier Ethernet. PBB, as well as PB, can be tried to.
t.bogataj 12/5/2012 | 4:10:11 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! heretoday:

"I posted the message to see if I could pull the chain of someone at Nortel. I don't think Tata is Nortel... wouldn't mention VPLS, for example if he/she were. But I'm speculating."

You're right, I'm not Nortel. But davallan is.

T.
davallan 12/5/2012 | 4:10:11 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! Hi T.Bogataj

you wrote
"the difference between PBB and PBT is exactly what I was trying to emphasize."

IMO that you can laud one a great and the other as marketing is irrational. There is about 99% commonality between the two.

"comment on Nortel's PBT plans"

I'm a technologist, not in corporate communications. That I and others are still working on this stuff at Nortel, and beleive it has technical merit not reproduced by competing technologies, is the view from my desk.

Meanwhile...

Putting PBB and VPLS together either results in a PW mesh per I-component and layer violations in both U and N-PE's as they need to snoop past the MAC/VID header to the I-SID, or broadcast inefficiency which can be mitigated by PE's snooping MMRP, provisioning or other ethernet registraton mechanisms and imposing MAC filtering at the ingress to each PW

If you really wanted to fix VPLS, subsuming and trivializing PBB in the VPLS architecture is not really a well considered technology response, it is a control of technology and marketing response and should be critiqued as such.

So I stand by my observation that munging them together may solve one VPLS problem (MAC scalability) but introduces others. Still butt ugly no matter how you look at it.

D
heretoday 12/5/2012 | 4:10:12 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! Interesting comments and perspective Creagh. I posted the message to see if I could pull the chain of someone at Nortel. I don't think Tata is Nortel... wouldn't mention VPLS, for example if he/she were. But I'm speculating.

Regarding your comments, Nortel is counter to your theory. They ONLY market to T1 for new technology forsaking T2/T3.

Bell Canada was the primary customer focus for what became the MERS8600 PBB story. It started in 2000ish with some exprimental work with IP encapsulation (Nortel IPLT) and evolved to a proprietary macinmac which became the drafts for PBB.

Bell pulled back from the NT PBB story and so NT had to shop for a new T1 carrier. BT became the focus.

Understand that each time a T1 focus changes, the Plan of Record changes to accomodate the priority features of that carrier as ALL carriers are different with different needs.

When BT backed off, the Verizon SES RFP became the focus. NT promised a revised POR for the Vz SES win forsaking promises to other Carriers. With all of these changes in POR the program got backed up... paralyzed.

But the promise of building a product just for Vz is obviously very appealing to Vz. And if it pays out, it is very profitable to NT. In the past there were several Vz/MCI focused product development efforts that went well... some that went bad.

But now with the appearnce that Morin is killing the PBB gear promised, Verizon is going to have to restart the SES... supposedly with someone else. There is/was A LOT of money in the SES RFP initiative.

Still wondering what they are going to do....

^Eagle^ 12/5/2012 | 4:10:12 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! Creagh,

Please note that the approach I described is almost exactly the approach that companies with new technology always take to gain acceptance of the technology and disrupt the market.

A few examples from the long time past:
-Paradigm.. sold a lot of switches before IPO and before AT finally bought them...
-DSC
-AFS
-Cisco

More recent examples:
-Ciena itself pre-IPO when they launched their first DWDM platform.
-LightEra, the company that was eventually bought by Ciena and became the CoreDirector
-Cambria: Nortel's success story in buying optical start ups.. this platform gave Nortel #1 or #2 status in metro DWDM for many years
-Cerent:

newer examples:
-Infinera
-DragonWave (wireless backhaul.. a good success story for IPO's during a downturn and profitability)

OK: ball is in your court:

Any examples for me of photonic burst switching deployments?

sailboat
^Eagle^ 12/5/2012 | 4:10:13 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! Creagh,

I am VERY familiar with the carriers, carrier decision making, carrier trials, approval process, need for confidentiality.

You answered a question I did not ask. I did not ask were there any technology trials. I know full well carrier labs trial all kinds of things and this must be kept confidential on both the carrier end of things and on the supplier end of things. This is the world I spend my days in.

You used an amateur debating technique that is used when one does not want to answer the question that was posed. Respond with an answer that sounds reasonable, but does not answer the original question, nor come even close to it.

The question was: can you point to ANY real world deployments of the technology you so faithfully flag and promote?

Any? Any at all???

To my point, big carriers don't en-mass adopt a new way of doing things that is this different and radical. Almost always, smaller more nimble my flexible carriers adopt first, then other medium sized carriers follow, then finally a T1 will jump in.

So, LONG before any real T1 carrier trials would even happen (note I said "real carrier trials" key word being REAL.. not a guy in carrier research lab checking out technology. Trials are different than that).. long before any T1 trials would happen, there would already be a few smaller T3, T4, IOC small mom & pop rural company, some large enterprise or campus... some kind of earlier adopter reference accounts.. then a progression up the food chain.

So, once again, I ask you in clear uncertain terms: can you name ANY deployments on networks that generate revenue for ANY carrier ANYWHERE in the world? Or really, even any meaningful enterprise or campus deployments?

NOTE: in my earlier question to you, I specifically said.. any small carrier... NOT a T1.. and yet you responded by giving me this BS statement about how T1 carriers do business. This is something that ANYONE with more than 1-2 years experience already knows full well. Especially if they are in this industry!

So, don't tell me the patently obvious and avoide answering my direct question: ANY deployments Creagh of this photonic burst switching approach? Anywhere? Even a university supercomputer private network? ANYTHING?

I know this technology has been under development for a long time. Lots of millions poured down this drain from several failed companies, the one still hanging in there, but certainly not thriving (Intune) and the new one, Matisse.

So, no ducking Creagh: Got any real news for us are are you once again just hyping the potential for a maybe future?

It has been suggested on these boards in the past that you find a more subtle way to promote your products and agenda. perhaps a non private test trial (there are test beds out there where this could be done) and a co-published white paper on the benefits.. perhaps co-authored by a real test bed and maybe ohhh, I don't know.. LR, or Telephony or a real industry source?

Just a thought.

sailboat
t.bogataj 12/5/2012 | 4:10:13 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! Dave,

you must have parsed the messages too quickly: the difference between PBB and PBT is exactly what I was trying to emphasize. Otherwise yes, I am biased against PBT; I never tried to hide this.

Being the right addressee for heretoday's questions, I would rather expect you to comment on Nortel's PBT plans. Well?

Dave & chechaco,

w.r.t. PBB+VPLS, I like the statement that "they are orthogonal" -- that gives us a two-dimensional solution, beyond the religious wars between Carrier Ethernet and MPLS proponents.

"Front ending" (as Dave put it) VPLS with PBB effectively addresses MAC-scalability: integrating BEB into VPLS edge solves MAC-scalability of VSI. On the other hand, H-VPLS addresses scalability of PW mesh. What more could one want? (No, Dave, not PBT.)

Dave,

back to heretoday's question: Regarding Nortel's current situation, and having been given a kick from BT's 21CN -- what are Nortel's plans with PBT (if any)?

tata,
T.
Creagh 12/5/2012 | 4:10:14 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! Sailboat, if T1 carriers are engaged in trials or at an advanced stage of planning trials of a disruptive technological change like OBS, why would they inform their incumbent equipment vendors ? As ever there will always be a pivot year when people look back and wonder what they missed. What we tend to forget is that carriers pocket's are not limitless and they need to innovate a lot sooner than the flock that sustain themselves off them. Nortel's issues here simply serve to reinforce that change might as well be upon us.
heretoday 12/5/2012 | 4:10:15 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! Well said "chechaco". And to my point... Morin is taking advantage of the fact that nobody has really defined what Carrier Ethernet is or isn't. But lot's of people have preconceived notions. Simply stating NT is continuing Carrier Ethernet isn't enough.

And you are 100% correct in the variations that could be called Carrier Etherent. Why not? The problem is, if we agree that your assesment is correct, you need some pretty good smarts in the metro access aggregation point that can terminate, translate, pass trough and treat some pretty complex protocols... This is what MPE was suppose to do for NT and their Carrier/Optical Ethernet story. $150-$200 Million later they couldn't get it to do anything and bailed. So now what?

If Cisco/Juniper/Alcatel/Tellabs don't want to sign up to provide gateway support for Nortel's variations on less than standard protocols.... who would buy the access gear unless it was just intended to be an island?

Anyway. Enough. Bottom line is NT isn't saying and likely doesn't know right now. Which simply means carriers need to take caution with the NT Carrier Ethernet story.
chechaco 12/5/2012 | 4:10:16 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! "... get acquainted with Carrier Ethernet before you make any more dumb statements ..."
I agree that understanding of underlying technology is important but what's more important, in my view, is understanding of terminology. The Carrier Ethernet does not require or is limited to support of PBB-TE. The Carrier Ethernet is connection-oriented packet switching service that is OAM hardened to deliver Quality of Experience according to existing SLA. The Carrier Ethernet can use co-cs (TDM), co-ps (MPLS-TP) as well as cl-ps (IP/MPLS) network as server layer.
"The third one is to get the idea how PBB and VPLS complement each other."
They are orthogonal.
davallan 12/5/2012 | 4:10:17 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! Hi t.botataj

I'm not quite parsing your statements...your bias is showing...

Primary difference between PBB and PBB-TE is control plane and how OAM is used...

Difference between PBT and PBB-TE is negligable

The serious technical background behind both PBB, PBB-TE, SPBB etc. largely came from common sources...and has similar merit.

PBB fixes some problems with, but I have trouble with claiming it complements VPLS as IMO VPLS does little for PBB that native Ethernet solutions (PBB-TE and SPBB) do not already do, but front ending VPLS with PBB also introduces a new set of problems. This seems to be nothing new in the history of VPLS...every step on the VPLS road has been the addition of more complexity trying to fix problems from the previous incarnation...

D
heretoday 12/5/2012 | 4:10:18 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! It's dumb to ask NT what they mean when they make a vague statement about what they are or are not supporting. Suspect that's why NT is in the shape they are in.

So enlighten us. If NT decides to move forward with PBB in the access. They keep the ESU's and aggregate them into what? Surely they are going to support E-Tree, E-Line and E-LAN. Don't have to use PBB to do this but lets say they are.

Where are you going to aggregate the access? What type of element? Phillippe says they are out of the switch/router business in support of CE.

Do you not still need to support multicast in some form? If you are interworking with VPLS do you not need MPLS support in some form? The implication there is that in that element you need to support some form of routing and routed protocols along with label distribution and service mapping.......

It's dumb to ask NT what their intentions are here?

And yes I get the perceived advantages of PBB and it's OAM in the access. But I have concerns about it's future with out a Tier 1 vendor and provider buying into it to build a revenue stream to continue the support.

^Eagle^ 12/5/2012 | 4:10:19 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! Can you tell us of any carrier deployments of photonic burst switching? I know there are companies pursuing this and that they have even deployed a few campus networks..

But can you point us to any real carrier deployments? Even a T3 or T4 carrier?

or is this simply more market pumping by matisse and / or intune?

sailboat
t.bogataj 12/5/2012 | 4:10:19 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! heretoday,

get acquainted with Carrier Ethernet before you make any more dumb statements.

Your first homework is to understand the difference between PBB/802.1ah and PBT/PBB-TE/802.1Qay.

The second one is to understand the serious technical background of PBB on one hand, and the marketing-focused background of PBT on the other.

The third one is to get the idea how PBB and VPLS complement each other. (And no, I am not mentioning PBT in this combination.)

When you do it all -- welcome back!

tata, T.
heretoday 12/5/2012 | 4:10:20 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! Rumor is that Phillippe Morin sent out a CYA note on the demise of Carrier Ethernet proclaiming its alive and well. Typical to Nortel it's a cloudy message because no one care to define what CARRIER ETHERNET is.

So here is the pointed and succinct question to Nortel. A simple YES/NO will suffice.

Will you continue the development of PBB/PBT/PBLS/PBB-TE/802.1ah in anything?

Last anyone checked it wasn't in any other product... and putting it in an ADM/ROADM is not likely a good play.
OldPOTS 12/5/2012 | 4:10:21 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! Tera,
'I'd be pretty upset if I were a multi-billion dollar corporation, being told my network isn't being upgraded because they are going to milk me and their old networks for every penny they can while they spend all their money on low-paying consumers downloading movies at 10Mb/sec, a speed which my company paying many thousands per month would only see in its dreams.'

-If it ain't broke don't fix it-
Most enterprise companies in today's market are happy to have something that works well and serves their business purposes. Right now is not the time to disrupt business to be a bleeding edge technologist as that requires adaption cost to the enterprise. Later when business comes back and the enterprise needs more (BW or lower cost) that they can afford to move. They want to focus on their enterprise business and not those support services.

But I will add telcom can be a big expense, so as soon as there is a business need/opportunity, then they will make a move, like "heretoday" said, one by one over a long time.

The cost of new interfaces are insignificant/irrelevant except to marketeers. The existing network people are familiar with the configuration so no expensive retraining costs to the enterprise. The training was a sunk cost.

OP
Bleading Edge Implementer of Enterprise Networks
paolo.franzoi 12/5/2012 | 4:10:21 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR!
tera,

There is incentive for the Enterprise customers to move away from legacy interfaces:

1 - The interfaces cost more money and (more importantly)
2 - Require specialists to manage

So, somebody will offer carrier ethernet. The question is how and why will people make money off of this if the price per bit continues to decline. That decline is the basic industry structural issue.

seven
heretoday 12/5/2012 | 4:10:21 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! Oh I think we'll see FR/ATM for a while. I don't think any carrier is in the mood to strand any customer these days. But as migration options become available that are cheaper for them to operate or provide more of something, like bandwidth, to the customer you'll see change over time. After all back in the early '90's the same questions, concerns, were being asked about Frame Relay vs. x.25 vs leased lines.

Regarding the MPLS / Pseudowire companies... I don't see Cisco or Juniper going away anytime soon and as for the also rans.. we'll just have to see how risk adverse operators are to see how many bite the bullet.
opticalwatcher 12/5/2012 | 4:10:23 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! "Different carriers have different approaches as to how they'll migrate from their FR/ATM networks to IP/Ethernet. Some incentivise customers to migrate the services they buy (largely to IP-VPN), whereas others emulate FR and ATM over an IP/MPLS core (again using pseudowires)."

I guess this route is my confusion. They are spending many billions migrating consumers to fiber. But they aren't going to rip up the wires of their highest paying customers? What gives?

I'd be pretty upset if I were a multi-billion dollar corporation, being told my network isn't being upgraded because they are going to milk me and their old networks for every penny they can while they spend all their money on low-paying consumers downloading movies at 10Mb/sec, a speed which my company paying many thousands per month would only see in its dreams.

And what of all this pseudowires/MPLS/PBB or whatever? Is this really being installed? If so, why are the companies that supply this going under? (which gets back to the article).

Something just doesn't smell right to me. I'm still not getting it.
heretoday 12/5/2012 | 4:10:24 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! Good question tera. Tier 1's make money from lots of customer types in lots of different markets. Big guys like Verizon have legacy TDM networks spaning hundreds of Metros with different architecture and design philisophies with some $100 Billion invested in infrastructure. Not likely they are going to rip it any time soon.... though the entire telecom vendor world would love them to.

We're talking about two cases with this techology. One is a green field metro access paradigm where you have no TDM and you are going to over tripple play using Ethernet as a customer carrige and IP as an application carrige. There are lots of cost advantages to to do this if you can.

Second case is an overlay on present TDM (SONET) infrastructure where the carrier is looking to better pack the SONET pipes. SONET still has the expense associated, but maybe you can get more than one customer on a DS-3 by selling many instances of best or good effort multi-megabit services. You can book end the SONET pipes with either Routers with MPLS or Ethernet Swithes running PBB/PBT.

As another person mention, the predominant technology choice is MPLS becasue the cost efficiences of a green field are not the same, and not realized, for a legacy SONET network. And then there are the protocol wars, but Carriers will usually put those aside if there is a real, tangible cost saving.

Your TDM is safe for the forseable future.
Creagh 12/5/2012 | 4:10:24 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! Guys, I think you are missing the point - there is a totally new paradigm emerging in Dynamic Optical Burst switching (aka NGN Optical Packet Transport). The carriers in europe are leading the way from IP/Ethernet/WDM to IP/OBS - why ? Massive CAPEX/OPEX cost reductions, with a big network performance uplift and huge power consumption savings 50 - 80%. The world has changed and the recession has just brought things forward here. The interesting question here is what do Nortel have ?? do they plan to acquire a start up in this space ? only two companies are out there....
giles0 12/5/2012 | 4:10:25 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! Carriers are indeed offering Carrier Ethernet services - generally using MPLS pseudowires as the transport mechanism.

They're also selling IP-VPNs (again carried over MPLS) to corporate customers.

Different carriers have different approaches as to how they'll migrate from their FR/ATM networks to IP/Ethernet. Some incentivise customers to migrate the services they buy (largely to IP-VPN), whereas others emulate FR and ATM over an IP/MPLS core (again using pseudowires).

In terms of how corporate customers are connected to IP/Ethernet networks carriers typically deploy Ethernet over point to point fibre to larger sites. To get to smaller, or off-net, locations it's a case of use what you have or can buy (TDM, PON, DSL, etc.)
opticalwatcher 12/5/2012 | 4:10:26 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! As just a small cog in the machine, I don't understand. Maybe someone with at a Tier 1 with a high level overview can explain.

Presumably Tier 1s make most of their money from companies--like Safeway, Walmart, Prudential, etc. It was T1s and T3s. They had more consumer voice customers, but these made them money more in quantity than in margin.

So has this changed? Why are these Tier 1 companies investing in now to replace all these T1s and T3s? Aren't they replacing their networks with IP? All I hear about is the consumer side--the ADLS and fiber to the home. Lots of expenditure and very little profit. What about their business customers? How are these companies connecting up nowdays? What does the Tier 1 offer them?

I guess I'm just wondering why Carrier Ethernet isn't taking off like you would expect. Are the Tier 1s ignoring their highest paying customers? If not, what, exactly are they offering them? If it isn't Carrier Ethernet, what is it? Are they hoping that they just stick around with their Frame Relay and ATM so they can continue to make big bucks off of old infrastructure? Even in this case, how are they carrying this traffic on their IP networks?

I'm clearly missing something major here. Maybe someone can explain.
heretoday 12/5/2012 | 4:10:28 PM
re: Et Tu, Morin? Then Fall, CESR! Guess there'll be some lab kit being returned soon.....

.... and maybe another Switched Ethernet Services RFP?

So in effect this kills PBB/PBT. Correct?

Soapstone's whole business/technology model was based on PBB/PBT provisioning... bet they are really happy with NT... guess this helps them make a decision on what to do next.

Not sure any of this is new news... the MERS PLM didn't jump ship because he was realy happy with the technology and investment directions.

It's a case of NT riding two horses with one butt. Enterprise folks want the ERS to go this- a-way... and the men from MEN want it to go that-a-way.

Sayonara PBB/PBT... hell0 MPLS and all of it's wonderful derivatives.....
HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE