Hi Ray, in that article, Vos says, "...which in practice means that the vendors take the initiative in making sure their equipment interoperates across various protocols and physical interfaces."
Now that all sounds good, but how does this get implemented uniformly, fairly, and consistently....in a way that everybody believes in? It seems a universal third-party certification group is out of the question, since why would a vendor put themselves through the time, frustration, and expense of such a thing, where various parts of the test suite are ONLY for a certain carrier's wares and special implementations (especially if someone else already had the big contract for existing gear)? Do they fail certification for some feature that may be irrelevant if the vendor's equipment is deployed elsewhere? I think he's passin' the buck, and the fair way to do it would be for each carrier to set up such certification processes on their own turf. They define what's important to them, because only they know.
I mean, he (Vos) said himself, "There is still a big difference in the network reliability of true carrier-class service providers,..." I think there are 2 dimensions of interoperability (among vendors for a given carrier, and among carriers) and he's only lookin at one, it seems. Centered around his world. The vendor has to look at 2-d.
re:"Vos said, and any vendor who talks about the death of Sonet must show how its restoration and protection features will be replaced."
Gosh, he must not read Gilder<gg>.
-----------
PS: Frank: sorry, no url for the LU snip. |
