Fibronics acquisition = MRVC expands into Enterprise Backbone biz...now MRVC can sell a complete solution.
As many of you know, there is a bit of a shakeup in the networking industry concerning future direction of the Internet. The whole "routers are dying" and "IP switches will take over" debate could start to hit bottom lines. And, what to make of the Cascade revenue slowdown?
I've posted this information here for MRVC investors. In particular, I'm interested in where MRVC is taking the Fibronics acquistion...
***
My earlier statement:
<<Further, some leading players like Cisco, 3Com, and MRVC are moving ahead with plans for Gig Ether as a WAN/backbone technology.>>
Clarification:
Sorry, I should be a bit clearer."Gig Ether" in my context includes both the "Gigabit Ethernet" of the standard under development, as well as other advanced multi-gigabit backbone switching technologies along a similar line. These "multi-gigabit switching technologies" would seem to include real switching products from the likes of Ipsilon, Ascend/NetStar (16Gig), MRVC/Fibronics (12 Gig)...and I'm sure others in the near future. These technologies would seem to support both enterprise backbone and even Internet backbone meeds (in Ascend's case).
(You quoted) the spec from the Gig Ethernet Standards site:
<What are the distance characteristics of Gigabit Ethernet?
multi-mode fiber optic link with a maximum
length of 500 meters; a single-mode fiber optic
link with a maximum length of 2 kilometers;>
In short, a spec is not a product! A direct quote describing the Gig Ether modules due out from MRVC next month:
"With the introduction of this Gigabit module, the MegaSwitch II enables users to create a gigabit backbone at a link distance of at least 20 km."
If you know anything at all about engineering, you must realize that "meeting the spec" is one thing, and "exceeding the spec" is another. My math says 20km is ten times 2km. Thank you, MRVC. Isn't 20km "wide"?
You said:
<ATM = WAN & LAN. I am not a networking "expert" like you purport to be, but I think I know the difference between a LAN and a WAN.The following statement you made is confusing>
As far as the whole "LAN/MAN/WAN" thing goes; that whole terminology thing is semantically obsolete. Purely, "Local Area Network," "Metro Area Network," and "Wide Area Network" are all that can be construed from the terms. If Cascade, Fore, and others have it drummed into your head that ATM=WAN&LAN, I think you (and they)
are in for a surprise. An obvious latter-day example is IP switching, but what about upcoming satellite technologies? A planet is a WIDE area network, indeed..."PAN"?
In the technology industry, it's not always having the "best and greatest" technology than wins sales. The reason Fast Ethernet is so popular in the LAN is it protects investment in existing equipment. Likewise, Gig Ether is a natural progression from that point. Further, higher-gigabit switching technologies should take the industry by storm, particularly if they do not require dramatic shifts (as is the case with ATM).
Don't take it from me, though I stand by my comments...which are consistent with those from the networking expert I quoted earlier. Check out the full text of that article, as well as recent developments in the ATM marketplace (Cascade slowdown), as well as the sudden interest in Gig Ether and other switching techs (Granite, Ipsilon, Fibronics). The big value of ATM is deterministic, class-of-service related networking.
Summarily, I believe Gig Ether and other IP switching technologies are the second-generation solutions to the same problem ATM was intended to address. Unfortunately, ATM is several years old and in fact the whole Internet(read that Ethernet) explosion had not yet taken place when it was conceived:
ATM = solution to projected problem, as perceived quite a few years ago.
Gig+Advanced Switching = solution to problem at hand...which incidentally sells.
Dan |
