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: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (13096)	8/30/1999 3:50:00 AM
From: pat mudge	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18016

frank -- You're absolutely right about Cisco, and part of their problem with Sprint --- if not their entire problem --- is the fact they've not changed to an IP/ATM focus sooner. After the MCI/WCOM failures it's hard to imagine anyone promoting an all-IP network. At least at the carrier level. NN shareholders have a lot to look forward to over the next few weeks. The two acquisitions are just the beginning. We should be getting the 50/320 launch and hopefully customer names to substantiate the products and services. In the second CC Alan mentioned they were shipping products in the TeraBridge 4000 line and I would imagine we'll get names there, too. Not to mention DMDS sales that I've heard are strong. Just thinking out loud --- based on Alan's comments about news coming between now and the AGM. Now, I'd better get some sleep. . . Pat

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (13096)	8/30/1999 7:35:00 AM
From: gbh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18016

Frank, one thing about Chambers and CSCO. They can afford to hedge bets in all directions. Also, I completely agree with Chambers on ATM as one of multiple transports for IP. The other being direct connect of IP to optical, be it SONET in some cases, or DWDM in others. What I disagree with, which is still being espoused by some on this thread, is a ubiquitous ATM simply because of its inherent QoS capability. gary

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (13096)	8/31/1999 8:19:00 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18016

Thread, in reading the ongoing discussion here concerning IP vs. ATM, I find it notable that no one has mentioned the ATM-like alternative that exists in the MPLS protocol... as a means of both offering higher levels of service, while at the same time preserving the philosophy associated with IP constructs. There are some very good and contrasting views on this subject in the July 1999 issue of Business Communications Review, in case anyone is interested. Passmore says that ATM must die [in most situations, conceding that the very large carriers may hold on to it for a while], while Finneran argues the need for QoS. Both articles converge, however, with a form of agreement that MPLS [even by some of those vendors who are now offering it prestandard] may hold a viable alternative or adjunct to both, where ATM alone seems the suitable choice at this time. That is, for large switched flows in the core capable of grouping traffic by COS/TOS in the pursuit of higher levels of service delivery. This is, in effect, what Monterey's [recently acquired by CSCO] lambda switching is all about, albeit at potentially higher denominations of bandwidth than traditionally non-optically-based switched flows. Regards, Frank Coluccio