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: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (977)	1/17/2000 12:47:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1782

Ken, I suppose that the composite trunking of the type being discussed in the Avici model could be used to "aggregate" a number (4) of OC-48 flows into an OC-192 equivalent, but it would not yield an OC-192c (concatenated) link in its present form, at least not from what I can discern. But given what they are doing, I don't know if that really matters. From the Avici pages that I've viewed, they don't mention OC-192 except in passing, although they do aspire through their participation in ODSI to go to 768. Here again I have to wonder if they speaking about an aggregated flow of 16 OC-48s to an equivalent OC-768, or a concatenated one which meets the hierarchical parameters of an STM-256, such as one that would be formed in silicon? I suppose the answer is in the literature, I just haven't gone that deeply into it. Since the IP framework is not that concerned with SONT/SDH overheading at the sub-dwdm level, and since actual forwarding doesn't take place at the 768 rate (yet), I suspect that it's simply an aggregated flow equivalent to 768, but I don't really know for sure. If someone else knows the answer, please post. Regards, Frank