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 : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MMW who wrote (29364)	11/14/1999 11:05:00 AM
From: KYA27	Respond to of 77399

MMW,Does this help in anyway?More on the NX64000 More on the NX64000. PSInet is to use it. See press release below. I recall the Monterey claims when they were first released. Their WaRP protocol elicited similar excitement. What that turned out to be was a take off on multiprotocol label switching, or MPLS-like, at the lambda level. And since lambdas are now almost synonamous with the outer optical carrier limit, or OC-x.. OC-192 in this case, then the port speed defines the speed at which they are able to "route." The trick then becomes being able to concatenate or define how streams are organized (framed to some SONET or other format) electronically, and then at the optical port level, at ever higher speeds. OC-768 is state of the art. Faster designs are already on the books. Some not so obivous by products here have to do with the ability of optical amplifiers (erbium doped fiber amps) to perform at these speeds due to dispersion artifacts vis a vis the implications of spacing them on the actual routes. Distances tend to get smaller as speeds increase, in other words. These parameters would be felt in the transoceanic space, where distances are pretty much fixed, already, on those cables which have already been placed. MPLS is the IETF's answer to Cisco's Tag Switching protocol. In either case, as I suspect is the case here, this is a Layer 2 process under the direction of Layer 3 addressing pointers. This is sounding similar. Very powerful stuff, though, no matter how you want to cut it. Frank

To: MMW who wrote (29364)	11/15/1999 10:32:00 AM
From: Hagar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77399

Responding to your doubts about Lucent optical routing. Routing is essentially a filtering operation. When a filter match is made an event is triggered. In the case of traditional routers the output interface is selected and appropriate layer 2 addresses are attached. Anything else forces the packet into the "slow path" domain. Light (lamdas), and I would assume the signaling that denotes data, is filterable. It was demonstrated many years ago. If Lucent can produce a system that can filter specific data from a stream over a lambda that triggers output interface selection then they are routing in the optical domain. Not far fetched. The control data (OSPF, RIP, BGP etc) is still handled in the "slow path" The only thing that I think would be worth argument is when (if ever) this particular technology translate to a deliverable product. This technology is different than a router with optical interfaces. Your questioning of the announcement is valid until you muddy it with your obvious company bias.