If ever you wanted to leave yourself open, by introducing a topic that could lead to a major digression of this thread, then examine your statement to me:
"I believe your discussion is focusing too much on the media and not the medium."
In any event, I really like how you avoid the threat of optical to the status quo. I tell you that optical systems are poised to replace backbone routers and switches in certain venues, and progressively more of them over time, never mind SONET elements, LAN equipment rooms, air conditioning systems, and untold other levels of legacy complexity, and all you have to tell me is to refocus my views, and return my thinking to the status quo. Nice. I certainly appreciate your taking the time to lend me that advice.
In the meantime, I'm looking at several competing offers from a number of Top-Five network element firms, including CSCO, to extend multi-protocol services, including SNA complexes, over the very DWDM'ed alternatives using proprietary fiber I was speaking about in my earlier post.
Would you care to guess how many carriers and specialized ISPs, and what kinds of network elements that traffic is being supported by, today?
"Today there is no standard method to do this and so you can either use rudimentary means or go with a single vendor and get a competitively superior solution. If you chose the former you can bet you'll be competing against the later. The SP with the best service (and great marketing of course) will win."
I can hardly believe that you said that. It sounds very much like something I have on a 1977 audio tape somewhere when I believed in another kind of protectionism, like you appear to be doing, today. It was a speech by John DeButts, the then chairman of AT&T, ten years after CarterFone, during the first MCI antitrust procedings. Never mind, I see where this one is going. Be seeing you on Lambda Seven.
Regards, Frank Coluccio |
