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 : Ciena (CIEN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: James Fulop who wrote (8106)	2/19/2000 12:58:00 PM
From: jghutchison	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12623

Satellite? Did someone say satellite? Ever wonder why you lose your TV video due to "upper atmosphere disturbance", aka rain? If I lose a few minutes of Captain Kangaroo, I don't get too upset, but if I miss a trade my feathers get a little ruffled. Sounds like a reliability issue to me. Aside from a massive gravitational field, nothing disturbs a photon stream. The signal to noise ratio is without parallel. The delay issue seems to be misunderstood. Does it matter if your data request is delayed 10 nanoseconds? The delay issue has more to deal with the interfacing of electronic and optical components, and the resulting restrictions on bandwidth, which is capacity, not the commonly preceived concept of speed. Minimizing, the eoe interfaces therefore increases bandwidth and reduces overhead and cost etc. Electronic components will never be completely eliminated. After all, the optical components are driven by electronics. I think that's JDSU's bag. I'd buy it before Iridium. Jack

To: James Fulop who wrote (8106)	2/19/2000 1:24:00 PM
From: sydney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12623

"CIEN revenues falling short...." on24.com "audio news"..free registration...can add your portfolio and be alerted when your stock is talked about(often before it hits other business sites)...might check it out...rec'd CIEN alert.

To: James Fulop who wrote (8106)	2/19/2000 4:09:00 PM
From: Kachina	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12623

What I mean here by delays, is that while there is a delay at that interface, it is miniscule. Look it up. Sattellite delay on the other hand is huge. You measure it in fractions of a second. I find it humorous, also, that people go on about the delays involved with detecting a signal at the EO interface, but totally miss the huge delays inherent in the packet protocols that are being run over them. Real basic network design. Any time you have a packet net, you have a series of store and forward "buffers" at all nodes in the network. What these nodes are is really just a computer that receives a packet in, and sends a packet on to the next location. Now, what does that mean? That means that the absolute minimum store and forward delay is the amount of time it takes to receive a complete packet of size N. What does this mean for the performance, as opposed to the bandwidth of the "circuit"? Let's make it really simple. If you have a link A-B-C, where B is the store and forward node, the performance of that link from A->C is the same as a non-packet (i.e. circuit switched) link from A->C with a bit rate of precisely 1/2 that of the A-B-C link circuits. (In this example, all internode links have the same bandwidth.) That is the best case. 1/2. But the throughput is the same. The reality is that there are further delays at each node. (i.e in in any packet net, like Cisco's.) Now, expand on this to a large net where a message will traverse many switched circuits between store and forward packet nodes. I have again and again explained this. Most recently to an operations department who were mystified as to why, when they upgraded part of a long distance link in a packet net they only say a small improvement in performance. Compared to all of that? Those delays at the EO interface are nothing at all. The Ciena execs are quite correct.