Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Newbridge Networks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tunica Albuginea who wrote (12820)	8/17/1999 4:28:00 PM
From: Techplayer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18016

Tunica, bill c. just pointed this article out on the LU board. WCOM has been full of it from the beginning by blaming LU's software. This validates my statement to you on the WCOM board a short time ago that the issue was one of process...LU is still taking too much of the blame, imo. Another MCI WorldCom frame victim: Network integration By David Rohde Network World Fusion, 08/17/99 Even as MCI WorldCom picks up the pieces of its recent frame relay crisis, another key victim has emerged: the company's plan to integrate all its networks. The 10-day network slowdown on the legacy WorldCom frame relay network, triggered by a failed software load on Lucent frame relay switches, is likely to push back MCI WorldCom's plans to build a seamless global frame relay network around this same Lucent gear. MCI WorldCom actually has four frame relay networks, Beaumont and MCI WorldCom CEO Bernard Ebbers admitted Monday. Besides the Nortel-based legacy MCI network and the Lucent-based legacy WorldCom network, MCI WorldCom continues to maintain two others: a network once operated by MFS Communications based on General DataComm gear, plus one originated by UUNET based on other Lucent equipment. Any move now to pull these together apparently would have to start from square one. "We have not done any integration of the frame relay platforms," Beaumont says. As Beaumont and other top company executives emerged from a much-criticized disappearance from public view, new details emerged about MCI WorldCom's frame relay crisis, including: The original congestion in the network that began Aug. 5 was not due to excess customer traffic, but was the result of excessive CPU utilization in the Lucent frame relay switches triggered by something in a new software load. That generated too much administrative traffic, which caused each switch to toggle repeatedly between its live and back-up modes, Beaumont says. The permanent virtual circuits in the network began going down after the network kicked in an automatic mechanism to deal with the administrative congestion: shutting down some DS-3 routes. The carrier network never actually destroyed the addresses of the frame relay permanent virtual circuits, but the effect was the same because the virtual circuits - which are not fixed routes, but rather virtual ones depending on network conditions - could not be successfully set up. The switches that were affected by the problem were those now known as the Lucent 9000 frame relay switches and the Lucent CBX 500 frame/ATM switches. These were previously manufactured by Ascend Communications, which Lucent bought earlier this year. In some of the customer communications, MCI WorldCom technicians continued to call the first type of switch the "Cascade 9000," a reference to its original manufacturer, a company bought by Ascend. ****Lucent says it accepts its share of responsibility for the problem, but appears to reject Ebbers' outright blaming of the vendor for the problem. A company spokeswoman has intimated that the technicians on hand to install the new software, which included both MCI WorldCom and Lucent personnel, might be at fault. "It was not a software problem, but a process problem," she says. She adds that the same version of the frame relay switch software has been successfully loaded into other carriers' networks, though she would not identify exactly which carriers.**** Both Beaumont and Ebbers spent much of Monday deflecting criticism that they failed to explain, either publicly or to their own account representatives, exactly what was going on during the 10-day crisis. "Could we have been more effective in our PR? Well, we have to take it as a learning experience," Beaumont says. One problem was that because MCI WorldCom could not identify a root cause for the problem early on, Beaumont says: "We didn't have a lot we could say."