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 : Frank Coluccio Technology Forum - ASAP -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: James Fulop who wrote (823)	12/30/1999 12:13:00 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1782

Hello James, While some of the author's observations hold merit, most of the passage seemed to be a development which brings us to the ultimate punch line. Much of what he had to say takes us to places which are almost irrelevant, with some non-sequiturs thrown in, IMO. Some issues are taken, rather obviously, out of context. Like many others I've read who've written about this lambda networking topic recently --I and others here have been guilty of this, too-- in one breath he covers "pure wavelength" delivery as a means of transporting IP, and in the next breath proceeds to put these same flows through SONET-defined formats, add-drop muxes (ADMs), and digital cross-connects (DCSs) which you can't get more circuit-switched than, instead of routers. I'm not suggesting that it's economically viable at this time to use routers on the tail sections as a means of feeding end users over the last mile. And even if routers were used, SONET framing would still be used. But that's not my point. My point is that the passage contains a rather common form of double speak which is used to selectively, albeit subtly, and in a very nice way, denigrate one of the parties in the comparison. This practice is fostered by the widely improper use of marketecture-induced terminology. I'll have to get back to this in the a.m., or later. In the meantime, how about if we get some input from others? It's been very quiet here lately. I guess many of the "sharpshooters" are still vacationing... Regards, Frank

To: James Fulop who wrote (823)	12/30/1999 9:05:00 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1782

James, further to last night's critique: I would suggest that the popular misuse of the lexicon surrounding the marketecture of this space has become so pervasive at this point that it transcends individual vendors' product description spins, and is now so widely out of control that we are giving full credence to their new meanings (the terminology used) whilst we attempt to rationalize what they actually mean and what's actually going on. Another way of putting the same thing: Everyone is so hung up on escaping legacy frameworks that we tend to entirely ignore, sometimes simply forget, the fact that we are actually using those same legacy constructs as a means to escape them. Leveraging the investments in embedded infrastructure, and all that. All DWDM gear along with the much celebrated terabit routing gear used for long haul inter-networking utilizes Layer 1 interfaces which are still defined entirely in SONET terms. It would be farcical at this time to suggest that SONET and many other legacy characteristics have been replaced simply through the implementation of optical wavelength technologies. Some have, but there's a long way to go. We thought that we were going to see optical routing. What we have, instead, up to this point in time, is a number of variations of multiprotocol label switching (MPLS) using OC-48 streams welded to SONET ports. Whether we call this wavelength routing protocol (WaRP) from Monterey, or virtual transport routing protocol from someone else, it's still a Layer 2 technique much akin to ATM or MPLS. We've not yet moved very far from legacy routing and switching in this respect, we've just made it faster by switching lambdas instead of virtual ATM paths. And we certainly are not actually "routing" at optical speeds yet, we're barely able to reach the next level of traditional forwarding and lookups due to the increasing levels of software-intense policy decisions in increasingly complex networks. We are simply lopping a lot more like traffic types onto the same lambdas through the use of SONET-defined containers, thus far. The only DWDM and terabit box interfaces which are NOT SONET-defined at the present are those which are used in proprietary systems supporting METRO apps, such as Gigabit Ethernet (GbE), Fibre Channel (FC), IBM's mainframe channel enterprise system connectivity (ESCON), and perhaps some high-speed parallel interface (HIPPI) applications, somewhere. Some of the latter, too, are encapsulated in SONET containers, depending on the vendor involved. Otherwise, look for SONET defined pipes, lambda-ized or otherwise. Sycamore, Juniper, Corvis, CIEN, NT, LU, Pirelli, they all abide by SONET interfacing standards up to OC-192, with many of them now seriously flirting with OC-768, and some already talking beyond. I don't see it going away anytime soon. Perhaps there will be a greater uptake in GbE-over-lambda for ISP peering purposes and by some enterprises at some point, but that remains to be seen. It's the "containerization quality" of the SONET standard which has clung to the industry, and used so extensively, because of its pervasiveness in add-drop muxes and cross-connects which are still absolutely essential elements in reaching the vast majority of end users (who do not have dark fiver installed). SONET has not survived due to its other administrative baggage which it possesses in its upper layers, but it's still SONET-framed, nonetheless. A great deal of the "other baggage" is mitigated or removed by nulling out some of the fields in the SONET overhead protocol, thus "skinnying" SONET down to the point where it is almost invisible. But it's still there. One of the features which tends to get skinnied out is the self-healing action, I should add. Time flies. More later, Frank