CobaltBlue,
I appreciate the reference. I'd like to refine, perhaps smooth over, a couple of these points.
Allow me to play back your clip, first, the way it appears, followed by some comments. Then I'll edit it to be more reflective of what I think your inference was, or at least what my position was.
First:
>>Coluccio says that optical switching is what the technology is heading toward, mechanical switches (Cisco) are kludgy. Lucent is making both, that's what the fight between Lucent and Ciena was about. <<
You may have thought that I was referencing CSCO, but I didn't mention them by name, nor was I singling out any specific vendor that I recall. Rather, I was referring to the super high speed [Terabit] routing class in general, who are now using embedded or add-on DWDMs in their assembly.
Edited:
Coluccio says that optical switching [and emerging optical routing techniques at the silicon or equivalent levels without the use of moving parts (mirrors which rotate on their axes)], is what the technology is heading toward. [Today's DWDMs, in the main,] [use] [machanical constructs and they] are kludgy.
Note: No particular vendor is mentioned here. Also, would someone come up with an approved spelling of "kludgy" for me, as this word is gaining more popularity every day in this field. <g>
---
Conceptually, logical routing of photonic flows vs. physical switching of wavelengths or whole strands, is analogous to the comparison used today to demonstrate the benefits of IP [and ATM/Frame Relay] protocols vs. nailed-up telephone connections on the PSTN.
Since these principles have already been hard-fought for and won, they should not meet up with too much resistance in the evolution of optical routing devices and networks. Indeed, they will be coveted.
A major point to be made here is that today's optical DWDM muxing devices don't even approximate the future capabilities of logical routing, no matter what the number of nailed up lambdas are, much less compete with them from the standpoint of theoretical superiority.
Given the rapid pace of development that exists today and the priority that this will now command because of the heads up that the field has received in this respect, it wouldn't surprise me if true routing products started to show up in another year or two. Maybe earlier.
What would this do to those carriers and large enterprise users who've already sunk millions into the older genre of "muxes?"
That's the point of possible contention that I think needs to be evaluated, similar, if not identical, to the dilemma that managers faced when routers proved in, when they had just purchased millions in T1-based multiplexers. History is great this way... you can always depend on it to repeat itself.
Happy Holidays, Frank C. |
