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 : SONS -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Theophile who wrote (73)	5/7/2001 12:05:06 PM
From: danofthebes	Respond to of 1575

Guaranteed delivery Although this is a topic more suited to the CSCO/JNPR boards, I agree with your comments regarding Diffserv,RSVP, etc... Regarding the 'guaranteed delivery' issue, Cisco has been hammering home the 'packet misordering' problem ever since JNPR's 160 was declared victorious in the LightReading/Network test router competition. Here's a link. lightreading.com the whole test... lightreading.com Look for more FUD from both sides when the JNPR 320 hits the streets. As far as SONS/GX relationship affecting the CSCO choice, from a GX technology perspective the softswitch implementors are probably just noise to the core network engineering group. I would guess that interoperability discussions are held, but that the core guys get what they want and everyone else has to hook up accordingly. If I'm Juniper and I know I've lost core business to CSCO, I may go to a GX partner and try get an annoucement out that would provide some counterpoint to the GX/CSCO press, but given the lack of any real content in the SONS/JNPR announcement, I consider it a non-event. No reason for SONS to say no as there was certainly no exclusivity involved. If they announce a joint customer win, now that's another story.

To: Theophile who wrote (73)	5/9/2001 4:56:01 PM
From: John Curtis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575

MartinT: Priority packets are just that: priority. Guaranteed delivery of a high priority packet implies fulfilling certain QoS specs, and I would assume CSCO can establish such specs and fulfill them, while other offerings have yet to put it into writing. I would not know personally, but I am still looking for the definitive reason CSCO can put it in writing and others are not so inclined.... My opinion is CSCO is betting their sales peoples private parts on THAT particular aspect of QoS. In the Class 5 "big iron" department QoS is GOD. If you can't meet 99.8 percent reliability and functionality (and this over the course of many years if not decades)....well...yer not even gonna see the inside door of the LEC decision makers you're trying to hustle. Period. Sooooo....CSCO putting their QoS guarantees in writing......where IP priority packet "stuff" is concerned?? Hmmmmm....me thinks you'd better read the fine print. I bet they caveat the hell out of the voice aspect of it. And if I was the sales person I believe I'd be ordering me a set of cast iron undies, just in case. After all, guarantees like that one are all but guaranteed to be broken. HEH! Oh..and for that matter, I like one comment as provided by Dano's Lightreading site. I paraphrase the mis-order packet comment, "mis-ordering is fractal in nature....." Reading that was the best laugh I've had today. My comment? No shyte. Ahem Don't get me wrong, the basic telecom paradigm shift to all things packet is underway, not the least of which involves IP/Voice, softswitching, etc. In fact, but the glacial standards of the LEC's and the telecom industry you can say it's coming, and coming on strong. But even so, it's gonna take a few years before network-wide fractal "droppings" become so small as to make QoS concerns a non-issue. IMHO, of course. John~