Hello James,
While some of the author's observations hold merit, most of the passage seemed to be a development which brings us to the ultimate punch line. Much of what he had to say takes us to places which are almost irrelevant, with some non-sequiturs thrown in, IMO. Some issues are taken, rather obviously, out of context.
Like many others I've read who've written about this lambda networking topic recently --I and others here have been guilty of this, too-- in one breath he covers "pure wavelength" delivery as a means of transporting IP, and in the next breath proceeds to put these same flows through SONET-defined formats, add-drop muxes (ADMs), and digital cross-connects (DCSs) which you can't get more circuit-switched than, instead of routers.
I'm not suggesting that it's economically viable at this time to use routers on the tail sections as a means of feeding end users over the last mile. And even if routers were used, SONET framing would still be used. But that's not my point. My point is that the passage contains a rather common form of double speak which is used to selectively, albeit subtly, and in a very nice way, denigrate one of the parties in the comparison. This practice is fostered by the widely improper use of marketecture-induced terminology.
I'll have to get back to this in the a.m., or later. In the meantime, how about if we get some input from others? It's been very quiet here lately. I guess many of the "sharpshooters" are still vacationing...
Regards, Frank
|
