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 : Ascend Communications (ASND) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: djane who wrote (47369)	5/21/1998 5:34:00 PM
From: stilts	Respond to of 61433

Thanks very much for the report on the meeting, djane. stilts

To: djane who wrote (47369)	5/21/1998 6:03:00 PM
From: Clay Takaya	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 61433

Thanks for the shareholder meeting notes.

To: djane who wrote (47369)	5/21/1998 7:53:00 PM
From: Narotham Reddy	Respond to of 61433

> ASND has landed new contracts I guess the management may announce this news as a hedge against market weakness, probably in the next few days. Just a guess. Narotham P.S: djane, very many thanks for keeping us posted.

To: djane who wrote (47369)	5/21/1998 8:09:00 PM
From: gbh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 61433

15-30% industry growth and 10-20% ASND growth. When asked about these low numbers after his presentation, Mory said ASND is being very conservative because "we learned our lesson" last year. I am very disturbed with the 10-20% growth statement. I would have much rather heard him say "ASND will meet or exceed industry growth" of 15-30%. This would have left the upside potential intact and pretty much covered himself to the downside. This statement is making me re-think my long position very hard. Even 20-30% growth cannot sustain the current PE. I understand the conservatism, but this seems very low. Any thoughts? Gary

To: djane who wrote (47369)	5/21/1998 8:25:00 PM
From: djane	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 61433

Cisco prepares to launch high-end networking blitz [I'm interested in comments. Gary, Bucky89?] By Paula Musich, PC Week Online 05.21.98 7:00 pm ET zdnet.com Cisco Systems Inc. early next month will introduce a trio of new high-end wide area ATM switch/routers and remote access concentrators at the ATM Year 98 conference in San Jose. Rather than provoke fear and loathing in Las Vegas at NetWorld + Interop earlier this month among the likes of Ascend Communications Inc., Lucent Technologies Inc. and Fore Systems Inc., Cisco (CSCO) will use the ATM Forum's showcase in San Jose, Calif., to debut its new 20G-bps carrier-class ATM switch, a high-density wide area edge switch and a follow-on to the Cisco 12000 Gigabit Switch Router, according to sources. The ATM switch, code-named Wildcat, is intended for carriers and ISPs that require full redundancy and NEBS compliance. The switch, based on ATM chip sets from MMC Networks Inc., uses two switching modules at its core and adds a third module for redundancy. It also adds new 2.5G-bps ATM OC-48 and OC- 48 packet over Sonet interfaces, according to sources close to the Cisco. Wildcat will also add another Cisco platform capable of supporting tag switching-or MPLS (Multiprotocol Label Switching), in Internet Engineering Task Force parlance. To date, tag switching is being implemented in the Stratacom BPX and in the 12000 Gigabit Switch Router. Wildcat is due out in the first quarter of next year. "Traditional carriers are showing a lot of interest in MPLS because they are doing cell switching in the core of their networks," said Dave Passmore, president of NetReference Inc., a Sterling, Va., consulting firm. The WAN edge switch, code-named Pop Eye, can support as many as 960 digital modems and 1,000 channelized T1 links. The high-port-density box will also include an OC-3 uplink. It is due in the third quarter of this year, sources said. The Gigabit Switch Router 12000 follow-on, code-named Jupiter, is Cisco's answer to next-generation router startups such as Avici Systems Inc., NEO Networks Inc. and NetCore Systems Inc., which are promising up to terabit speeds for IP routing. Jupiter will provide a combination of packet and cell switching and can scale up to 250G bps of switching capacity. It is not due until the second half of next year, sources said. Cisco officials in San Jose had no comment. The company can be reached at www.cisco.com. Send E-mail to PC Week \| Copyright notice

To: djane who wrote (47369)	5/21/1998 8:36:00 PM
From: djane	Respond to of 61433

Telecom Wars: the Netheads vs. the Bellheads techweek.com by Thomas S. Gray Have an urge to merge? Talk to Bay Networks Inc., which reportedly is interested in being bought-though not at anything close to its current price. The usually anemic stock of the Santa Clara-based network-equipment maker sprang to life recently following a wire-service story that it had spurned a takeover bid from Canada's Northern Telecom Ltd. but was open to higher offers. Bay's stock soared 16 percent, closing up $3 13/16 at $27 3/4 on May 13. Neither Bay nor Nortel would confirm the report, but analysts who had talked to Bay executives say the company wanted to do what was best for shareholders, including a sale if the price was right. Paul Sagawa, a Sanford Bernstein analyst who had met with Bay officials, told Reuters he suspected the company "would not consider anything less than, say, five times sales at the outside, which would put them in the $50 (per share) range." That wasn't the biggest merger story, though. That honor goes to the San Antonio, Texas-based SBC Communications Inc.'s announcement on Monday that it would buy Ameritech Corp., the Baby Bell of the Midwest, for some $61 billion in SBC stock. That would be the biggest telecommunications merger in U.S. history-if the authorities let it go forward. And with not many $61-billion companies around to swallow (and very few companies big enough to swallow them) it may hold the top spot at least for the next few weeks. The SBC-Ameritech and Bay stories do have one thing in common, though: They both reflect a telecom industry in flux, with the mergers getting bigger and the old turf borders fading away. One such boundary is the old line between the networking and telephone-equipment markets. Whether or not Nortel actually made an offer for Bay, analysts say such a thing is likely to happen. If the suitor isn't Nortel, then they suggest other big phone-gear suppliers-Lucent Technologies Inc., Ericsson AB, Alcatel Alsthom. These are the established suppliers to the telecom service providers-the SBCs, Ameritechs, and phone companies around the world. They're being challenged now by firms like San Jose-based Cisco Systems Inc., which have made their mark by building data networks for businesses. By going after Bay, a Nortel or a Lucent would be buying up part of the competition, though not the strongest part. Bay has lagged behind rival networkers Cisco and Santa Clara-based 3Com Corp. in selling to the phone carriers. Its stock has gone mostly nowhere since the company was formed in the 1994 merger of Wellfleet and Synoptics. Cisco, of course, is one of the stock market stars of the '90s, with a market value of around $77.5 billion, or about 10 times its annual sales. In its latest quarter, ending April 25, it reported a 33 percent jump in sales from a year earlier and a 29 percent increase in per-share earnings, before one-time charges. About 30 percent of its revenue now comes from sales to service providers-cable and phone companies. Recent deals include a contract to supply asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) switches to the fiber optic network being built by Ireland's Esat Telecom Group. Closer to home, Cisco has joined with U.S. West Communications Group and Dell Computer Corp. to equip personal computers for the high-speed Internet service that U.S. West plans to roll out around mid-year in some 40 cities. Dell will provide the PCs, Cisco the modems. Cisco also has also hooked up with Time-Warner to deliver broadband Internet service to cable subscribers. Abhi Chakri, an analyst at the research and consulting firm Jupiter Communications, says the "Netheads" are challenging the "Bellheads" for dominance in telecom gear. But he says don't count out the Bellheads such as Lucent and Nortel. When it comes to equipping the backbone of the telecom system, which must serve millions of customers with foolproof reliability, they have the experience. Chakri points to AT&T's data-network outage in April, which was caused mainly by Cisco equipment. "It's a very different market from what Cisco is used to serving," Chakri says. "Cisco has been selling routers to (the telcos), but selling switches to them is a wholly different game." While Cisco and the Bellheads slug it out, what about the telephone companies themselves? Are they going after new markets-such as high-speed Internet-or mainly trying to hold on to what they have? The answer is mixed. In most of the country, the telcos aren't rushing to widen the bandwidth bottleneck. U.S. West, the Baby Bell for the Rocky Mountain states, seems to be taking broadband, high-speed Net service seriously. SBC, on the other hand, seems mainly intent on creating economies of scale through acquisitions and hanging on to its monopolies in local phone service. Analysts don't see the Ameritech merger advancing the cause of better Internet connections; Chakri says the chore of digesting a huge new acquisition will just make the SBC more sluggish. (See our front-page story on the Internet performance of SBC-owned Pacific Bell, which serves Silicon Valley). The telcos have a new high-speed technology-ADSL, for "asymmetric digital subscriber line"-that can give PC users much shorter downloading times on existing copper wires. Kevin Landis, a technology mutual-fund manager based in San Jose, says ADSL "has always been thought of as next year's technology. but based on what you see at trade shows, it looks as though the technology is really deployable." Landis says the next test is "line conditioning"-to see whether the phone lines themselves are up to the task of carrying all the new high-speed signals and aren't prone to "electrical problems" like cross-traffic and breakdowns. Bugs aside, he says, telcos also have an incentive to go slow on rolling out ADSL service to the public at large. The companies already make lots of money on a small number of T1 business lines, which use an older mode of DSL. Shifting to ADSL "promises them a little money for a lot of lines," he says. The cable-modem camp has its own technical challenges, Landis says-not the least of which is learning to handle a huge volume of two-way traffic. "If there's anything phone companies are good at, it's switching," he says. "If your cable modem seems to look great until you try to send something, that's probably not going to cut it for most consumers." Landis is manager of Firsthand's Technology Leaders Fund and co-manages its Technology Value Fund. On the issue of Netheads vs. Bellheads, he sees strength on both sides; his funds have positions in both Cisco and Lucent. As for the battles of the bandwidth, he likes the firms that build the highway more than those who drive it. He's investing in companies such as Sacramento-based integrated-circuit maker Level One Communications Inc., whose products increase the carrying capacity of the communications backbone. For now, at least, cable companies have a head start on the telcos in high-speed Internet. Michael Harris, president of the Phoenix-based research firm Kinetic Strategies, says such service is now available to 11.5 million homes in the United States and Canada, though only a small fraction-225,000-subscribe to it. He sees that number nearing 500,000 by the end of this year and topping 1 million by the end of 1999. All of which is good news for @Home Corp., a cable Internet service based in Redwood City. Somewhat like a souped-up America Online, @Home offers Web access as well as its own content through cable systems. Its subscriber list recently passed the 100,000 mark, and it has signed affiliate deals with nine major U.S. cable companies, including Tele-Communications Inc., Cablevision Systems, and Comcast Corp. Earlier this month, it announced it had teamed up with Century Communications Corp. to get exclusive access to Century's 3.3 million homes in metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles and Colorado Springs. The company went public last July and is one of the top-performing Silicon Valley IPOs of the past 12 months (see chart). Its shares have roughly quadrupled in value since going on the market. BIO: Thomas S. Gray is a former senior editor for Investor's Business Daily. He can be reached at tsgray@ibm.net. Back to TechWeek Homepage c 1998, TechWeek and Metro States Media, Inc.

To: djane who wrote (47369)	5/21/1998 8:39:00 PM
From: djane	Respond to of 61433

Users ticked off over bug notice by Dave Webb plesman.com Users reported a vulnerability in Ascend Communications Inc.'s Pipeline 50 ISDN router to the manufacturer in early 1997 - a year before a third party revealed it - and got no response to their concerns, sources recently told Computing Canada. In March of this year, Calgary-based security auditing software company Secure Networks Inc. (SNI) posted an advisory describing how hackers could download the configuration files of Alameda, Calif.-based Ascend's router through SNMP (Simple Network Management Protocol). The vulnerability involved leaving default read- and write-communities set to default strings. At the time of the announcement, Ascend spokesman Eric Warren said it was common practice to reset those passwords. He questioned SNI's motives to announce the hole, and also to announce a second vulnerability for which Ascend posted a patch within hours of the March 16 announcement, without first notifying Ascend. SNI countered that they had notified Ascend six weeks before - on Feb. 2 - and had received no response from Ascend. A Toronto network security professional, who spoke on condition of anonymity, says he exchanged e-mail with Ascend about the hole in August, 1997. And, in fact, Ascend may have unwittingly made it dead easy for an intruder to hack the router. On its Web site, Ascend posted a Java configurator for the Pipeline router to ease set-up of the box. The anonymous security consultant found he could dump configuration files from a dial-up connection to the router. Ascend technical support told the consultant to install filters and change community names on the router. Both solutions precluded using the Java configurator - a message box which instructed the user to reset read- and write-community names to their defaults - again exposing the router to anyone with Ascend's Java configurator. The consultant asked Ascend to issue a CERT (Computer Emergency Response Team) advisory, since his company's security policy forbade him to do so himself. Ascend never did, he said. The company didn't post software patches and filters until after SNI went public. A San Diego network professional says he told Ascend about the hole soon after his company, began using the equipment in early 1997. "The actual SNMP commands are documented," says Kit Knox of Connectnet Internet Network Services Inc. "We just noticed the SNMP communities were set to defaults that anyone could use, just in going over the configuration for what we set up for our customers." Knox says he reported the vulnerability several times to Ascend's technical support staff, by phone and by e-mail. "The technical support people had said, 'Okay, we'll let the appropriate people know,'" but nothing happened, Knox says. He adds Ascend has hinted that the default strings were left wide open as a way for customers to recover forgotten passwords. "In the Ascend routers, if you set the password to something and you forget it, there's no way to recover it unless you use the SNMP method or actually crack open the router, jumper something, reboot it, erase its flash, things like that," Knox says. "There's obvious reasons why they don't want customers opening up the boxes." Continues Knox, "They have been saying for a while they have a security section in the update to their documentation that says you should probably change this if security is an issue. But why set the default to be so wide open? A lot of people configuring things like this don't know what they're doing. So every effort should be made to eliminate these risks." Knox says Connectnet didn't go public with the information to avoid exposing their customers to the vulnerability while the company worked out configurations for them. Alfred Huger, project manager with SNI, says that while vendors usually work with SNI to jointly announce bugs the firm discovers and fixes, he's not surprised by Ascend's reaction. "It's not unusual for a vendor to stonewall on these types of issues and hope to brush them under a rug and assume or hope nobody will publicize it," Huger says. "Ascend isn't alone there. Almost all of the vendors are like that. "Information like this, if you can assume that some administrator somewhere knows about it, it's guaranteed that the intruder community knows about it too. It's extremely large, and extremely well-organized," Huger says. "Intruders typically find bugs a hell of a lot faster than the vendors do, so it's much better that the playing field's even and everybody knows there are problems." BACK INDEX FORWARD Copyright c 1997 Plesman Publications Ltd. Reproduction in whole or part without permission is prohibited.

To: djane who wrote (47369)	5/21/1998 8:42:00 PM
From: djane	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 61433

LANTimes article. CLECs debut. Carriers offer voice and data services wcmh.com./lantimes/98/98may/805b048b.html A relatively new acronym is being exchanged in telecom and datacom circles: CLEC. CLECs (competitive local exchange carriers) were spawned from the Telecommunications Act of 1996. They differ from and compete with ILECs (incumbent local exchanges) in that they can offer local voice and data services in territory otherwise monopolized by the ILECs. CLECs tend to be regional and are required to apply for CLEC status in the states in which they plan to offer services. According to the research firm Frost & Sullivan, nearly 200 CLECs are in business today, compared to the roughly 1,500 ILECs that, in addition to the five Baby Bells, include GTE Corp. and Sprint Corp. In their laconic histories, CLECs have distinguished themselves as leading, if not always deep-pocketed, service innovators. Teleport Communications Group and e.spire Communications Inc. offer combined local, long-distance, and IP services over a single T-1 connection. HarvardNet, an ISP that transformed itself into a CLEC last year, was one of the first providers to offer high-speed access services based on xDSL (Digital Subscriber Line) technology. To further complicate matters, ILECs can file as CLECs. Four of the five RBOCs have filed for CLEC status in at least two states. US West leads the pack, having won approval in 27 states and with ap-plications pending in 22 others. A primary advantage to being a CLEC is the tight relationship it can share with incumbent telcos. CTC Communications plans to offer business data services without owning any network infrastructure. Instead, it will lease and resell lines from Bell Atlantic. In lieu of operating its own infrastructure, CTC says it will act as an outsourced telecom manager for its customers--designing, servicing, and maintaining the telecom and datacom networks of small and mid-sized businesses. However, CTC's "switchless" approach is the exception, not the rule. CLECs generally build networks that run alongside those owned and operated by their incumbent rivals. PSINet is using interconnections with CLECs' networks to expand its national IP network. CLECs e.spire, ICG Communications Inc., and Eagle Communications Inc. in New York will provide PSINet with thousands of ISDN PRI (primary rate interface circuits). "RBOCs would not give interconnections to us because they're in a monopoly position and they're unfair in their treatment of ISPs," laments PSINet CEO Bill Schrader in Herndon, Va. "They're routinely unfair and this is the only way around them." "Whether it's US West, Bell Atlantic, or Ameritech, what we're going to do is meet them on their turf, force them to give us interconnections, and then eat their lunch," Schrader says.

To: djane who wrote (47369)	5/21/1998 8:50:00 PM
From: djane	Respond to of 61433

Telcos Charging Californians More. Local DSL pricing strategy looks like the ISDN high-speed Net access fiasco all over again techweek.com by Lewis Perdue Digital Subscriber Lines (DSL) are being hyped to high heaven as the "big pipe" that will finally unleash the promise of the World Wide Web and provide the speed for video and other bandwidth hogs. But if you're waiting for reasonably priced DSL service, and you live in Silicon Valley or the rest of California, don't hold your breath; that privilege has been reserved for points further east. While both U.S. West and Ameritech are rolling out DSL service (including Internet access, e-mail and Web site space) for about $50 per month, similar service through California's main phone companies-PacBell and GTE-is expected to cost two or three times as much. California customers are also looking at paying two to five times more for equipment and start-up charges, with bills that approach $800 at Pacific Bell compared with an Ameritech customer's $150 in start-up charges. With cable modem access and AOL's recently announced service also coming in at about $50 per month, the high pricing by California telephone companies seems guaranteed to help them make the same mistakes they did with ISDN, choking off acceptance with high prices and making the acronym mean (for many) I Still Don't Need. (It actually stands for Integrated Services Digital Network.) Comparing DSL access is tricky because it comes in so many different flavors. The most common is ADSL, where the "A" stands for Asymmetric, indicating that upload and download speeds are different, with download speed being faster in an asymmetric system. Most DSL offerings have a download speed capable of approximating T1 line performance. Upload speeds vary widely, ranging from 128 Kbps (equivalent to a full-blown, two-channel ISDN line) all the way up to 1.544 Mbits/sec. All the carriers offering DSL agree that it is an ideal technology for telecommuters and small businesses needing a faster connection without the punitive costs of frame-relay (typically 384 Kbps) or T1 service. Ameritech and U.S. West recognize this potential market and the way the users overlap, and they have not instituted a dual-pricing mechanism for their services. Pacific Bell, on the other hand, charges a residential customer $80 per month for a 384-X-384 Kbps connection (ISP charges extra), then proceeds to hammer the small-business customer for $135 for the same connection (ISP also additional). This monthly charge is on top of the DSL hardware, network interface card, and installation, which are another $660. Which is on top of another $125 hook-up charge. Contrast this with lucky customers in Fargo, Boise, Sioux Falls, Salt Lake City, and other places served by U.S. West who will get DSL (including Internet access) for $65 per month for a 512-x-512 Kbps connection (33 percent faster than PacBell's) and a set-up fee of $145. Hardware is an additional $199 to $299. But the luckiest are users a bit further east who are served by Ameritech, which has started DSL service in the Detroit area for $49.95 per month, a one-time installation fee of $150 and free-yes, free-hardware for a download speed of 1.5 Megabits/sec and upload of 128 Kbps. The $49.95 price and waiver of hardware fees is part of an introductory offer. Ameritech says the price next year will be $59.95 per month and the hardware will cost $199, still light years less than Pacific Bell. In California, GTE isn't much better than PacBell. The first test of their service in Marina Del Rey offers residential customers a 680 Kbps-x-256 Kbps service with Internet connection, e-mail, and Web site space for $125 per month and a $250 installation. Business users get soaked for $700 per month and a $500 installation feet for 1.5 Mbps-x-384 Kbps service. Compare this with three Ameritech offerings: 1 Mbps both ways for $120 per month ($145 start-up fee); 1.544 Mbps both ways for $455 per month ($145 start-up fee); and 4 Mbps-x-1 Mbps for $480 per month ($500 start-up fee). Soaking business users is a long-standing tradition with California phone companies, continuing today even as competition in other states has brought the two rates closer together. The disparity is even more pronounced in this era in which there is no practical difference between telecommuters and single-person businesses that are in the unfortunate position of having an office away from home, thus getting assaulted by PacBell's punitive business rates. With a standard analog dial-up line, a single-person business working from home would pay a flat rate of $26 for the line and no per-minute charges for calls made within the local dialing area. The very same person doing the very same work for exactly the same amount of time using the phone pays $10.82 plus a per-minute charge of 3.33 cents for the first minute of every call, and 1.05 cents for every additional minute. For businesspeople needing constant e-mail and Internet contact, these charges can easily exceed $200 per month, minimum. For people whose dial-up Internet number is farther away than eight miles or so, the prices soar. Telco execs agree that price discrepancy is unfair "We've tried very hard to price all our services competitively and in line with our costs," says Ameritech spokesman Geoff Potter. Big differences between residential and consumer prices, he says, reflect an out-dated system where business rates subsidize consumer rates. "There's no difference in actually providing the service," Potter says. "And in most areas, business and consumer rates are getting closer together as artificial subsidies are removed." "We priced our DSL service according to two criteria," says Bo Brock, Ameritech.net's marketing manager for high speed Internet access. "One was the competition, and that's not a T1 or satellite feeds, but cable modems. The second is that we wanted to price it fairly for the mass market. We simply could not justify charging people $150 for this." Brock says that the pricing is not a special introductory come-on, but that Ameritech is getting "a pretty good return on investment" at the price they are charging. The artificial subsidies that drive up the price of an ordinary business phone line can actually make even PacBell's DSL prices attractive since DSL does not come with per-minute charges attached. Therefore, a sole proprietor who uses a business line intensively should save a little money even if paying $150 per month or more for California prices. This, however, is a little like dealing with a loan that only wants to break one of your kneecaps when it wanted both of them in the past. Michael Powell, Director of DSL Marketing for SBC Communications (which owns Pacific Bell) defends his company's rates and business-versus-residential pricing: "Our office is marketing primarily a business offering, so we entered the market with speeds and prices that we felt were appropriate." He dismisses the Ameritech, U.S. West, and AOL pricing as "introductory rates" and "consumer offerings" whose lower prices could not withstand a full market roll-out. Both U.S. West and Ameritech say this is not the case. In addition, Powell denies that AOL's DSL service and $49.95 price will establish a pricing floor that will prevent PacBell from getting the rates it is now charging because, he implies, they will not be able to scale up the operation beyond a trial basis and still keep prices at that level. Currently, Pacific Bell is offering DSL service in the Bay Area in a "J"-shaped area running from Walnut Creek to San Jose and up to Palo Alto. Concentric Networks is the only major ISP tagging along in those areas, buying DSL "pipes" from PacBell. Their turnkey offerings reflect the higher California prices. A 384-x-384 Kbps account would cost $159 to $199 per month with an equipment charge ranging from $350-$550, and circuit activation and on-site installation charges ranging from $325-$385. Faster service is available, but at a steep price. A 1.1 Mbps (both ways) account will cost $399 per month compared with Ameritech's $120 per month for 1 Mbps (both ways) service. The availability of DSL service is also an issue where Silicon Valley and other California residents will have to take a back seat to their cousins farther east. Before the end of June this year, U.S. West says it will be offering DSL to most major cities and towns in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Ameritech says it will be available in the Detroit and Chicago areas this summer, and that within the next two and a half years, it will be available to 70 percent of their customers. By the end of this year, GTE will be offering the service in areas of Southern California, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. Pacific Bell says it is holding trials at 14 central offices in the Bay Area and does not have roll-out plans yet. BIO: Lewis Perdue, author of 16 books and CEO of SmartWired Inc., can be reached at lperdue@ideaworx.com. Back to TechWeek Homepage c 1998, TechWeek and Metro States Media, Inc.

To: djane who wrote (47369)	5/21/1998 8:55:00 PM
From: djane	Respond to of 61433

Cisco prepping router for terabit speeds May 21, 1998 Network World via NewsEdge Corporation : Las Vegas Cisco Systems, Inc.'s new terabit router will be based on the same= architecture as the company's existing gigabit routers.=20 Next year, Cisco will unveil 10G bit/sec OC-192 interfaces for its 12000= series Gigabit Switch Router, which will begin the GSR's metamorphosis into= a terabit switching router, said Graeme Fraser, vice president and general= manager of Cisco's ISP business unit. Fraser discussed Cisco's plans two= weeks ago at the NetWorld+Interop 98. "We are going to base [terabit routing] on the GSR," Fraser said. "We= plan to upgrade [the GSR] next year with 10G bit/sec line cards for 250G= bit/sec of overall capacity [and] to scale beyond that for multiterabits. " Terabit routing provides the speed many industry experts say is= necessary for scaling the Internet into the next decade and providing a new= class of data services to end users. Several router start-ups are designing= terabit routers (NW, Jan. 19, page 20). Many of the start-ups, however, say that a crossbar switching fabric - = which is at the heart of Cisco's GSR - is inadequate for scaling the= Internet to terabit speeds. Specifically, detractors say because crossbar= fabrics employ input queuing, they are insufficient for IP multicast= applications and are susceptible to head-of-line blocking. But Cisco claims to have cured the multicast and head-of-line blocking= issues of crossbar switches with the GSR. For multicast, the GSR employs a= patented output-scheduling algorithm for recognizing and queuing multicast= packets, Fraser said. And the GSR employs a technique Cisco calls "virtual= output queuing" to alleviate head-of-line blocking. Another technology that will help scale the GSR is wave- division= multiplexing (WDM). WDM is said to provide increased bandwidth efficiency,= and eliminates the cost and bandwidth limitations of time- division= multiplexing (TDM), which is employed in existing Synchronous Optical= Network (SONET) infrastructures. To connect the GSR to WDM gear, Cisco is= developing a concatenated OC-48 interface. A concatenated interface= statistically multiplexes packets and cells over optical wavelengths and= uses all of the 2.5G bit/sec available in an OC-48 trunk. [Copyright 1998, Network World] Copyright c 1998, NewsEdge Corporation No redistribution allowed.

To: djane who wrote (47369)	5/21/1998 8:58:00 PM
From: djane	Respond to of 61433

new ibm group targeting the telco/isp market [Cascade reference] May 21, 1998 Network World via NewsEdge Corporation : When it comes to contending in the highly competitive market for telco= and ISP wares, Big Blue has been a Big Mess. But several signs indicate that IBM now wants to play hardball. The= company recently landed a contract with Sprint Corp. that will let the= carrier offer IBM frame relay and SNA hardware and services to big= enterprise users. The contract was the first big win for a new group inside= IBM's Networking Hardware Division (NHD) designed to win big telco and ISP= business. ''We have at least seven other contracts pending, and we have lots of= other products and services that will be available for the ISP and telco= market by the end of the year,'' said Robert Zimmer, business line manager= for the new Service Provider Networks group.=20 Zimmer declined to identify the other companies his group is in= negotiations with, but sources said IBM has been talking with MCI= Communications Corp. and AT&T. Neither MCI nor AT&T confirmed these= reports. While Zimmer provided few technical details, he said IBM later this year= will roll out a high-end switch aimed exclusively at the ISP/telco market.= He said the box will handle routing and switching and will help users= funnel multiprotocol traffic onto carrier backbones. IBM already offers the= Nways 2220 Model 200 - a small access switch that it will sell to telcos= and ISPs, Zimmer said. But products are not the Service Provider Networks groups only focus.= Internally, the group has the power to work with other IBM divisions to= package services - such as a server with storage systems and software, for= example - and offer them to carriers. And as of last January, the group had dedicated sales people to go after= telco and ISP contracts. ''NHD has been in the telecom market for a while but has not had much to= show for it,'' Zimmer said. ''But we now have a concerted internal effort= to make this business succeed.'' The thrust, Zimmer said, will be on= selling packaged services targeting IP, SNA, voice and other net= technologies. By the year 2000, managed services and ISP services will be worth $23= billion. ''We intend to own a big part of that,'' Zimmer said. But success will not come easily. IBM has watched rivals such as Cisco= Systems, Inc. and Bay Networks, Inc. build strong track records by= installing their equipment in ISP and telco nets. IBM has also let its hardware reselling agreement with Cascade Corp.= expire - meaning Big Blue has no high-end switch to sell to telcos or ISPs.= =20 It's going to be hard for IBM to succeed outside its own installed base,= said Jerry Weth-erington, systems coordinator at the University of Florida= in Gainesville. IBM's ISP products and services are going to appeal most to= those with IBM equipment already installed, he said. ''IBM is late to the game, but they could be a semicredible supplier to= ISPs, and they can grab a piece of the market,'' said Howard Anderson,= managing director of The Yankee Group consultancy in Boston. [Copyright 1998, Network World] Copyright c 1998, NewsEdge Corporation No redistribution allowed.

To: djane who wrote (47369)	5/21/1998 10:27:00 PM
From: djane	Respond to of 61433

ASND shareholder meeting notes (Part II) The rest of my notes on Mory's presentation. Look at my prior notes for other highlights. (please consider my non-technical background before ripping it apart) 2,000 employees. New Global Integration Services division under Scott Thompson Installed Base 4M access concentrator ports 1M frame relay ports 400,000 router ports 100,000 ATM ports 2 trillion packets per day on ASND equipment ATM backbone demand is very strong. WMB, QWST and GTE new contracts Market Trends. Tremendous change Private networks, circuit switches, TDM declining RAC, internet access, VPNs/fax, VoIP, public packet WAN strong Key is to reduce cost to carriers ASND success with the following: New Service Providers New Voice/Data Carriers CLECs/ILECs Backbone providers (IXC, WMB) France and Italian alternative carriers [Didn't catch the names. I hadn't heard them before, but I don't know if it was new info.] Technological competitive advantage Goal to build multi-billion dollar business 1997 Financials 36% carriers 41% internet service providers [Mory pointedly said it was a select group] 21% resellers 2% direct sales $600M cash, 72 day DSOs and 4.3 inventory turns Question & Answer session Mory became most animated when responding to questions about CSCO. Said CSCO hasn't been able to penetrate their areas DSL strategy to deploy all of the different DSL strands Will deploy new technology to increase encryption speed Some cable providers are using ASND equipment. But, ASND focus on DSL. Cable infrastructure problems because it is unidirectional. More copper than cable. DSL better for voice and data. CLECs are the key for DSL deployment. DSL deployment has been slower than anticipated due to RBOCs. Funny moment when someone asked about what would happen if everyone in China wanted web access. Everyone laughed and Mory said, "I wish everyone in China wanted on the net." That's when he said ASND sells to MPT and that ASND is the largest access provider in China. Hopeful of Japan growth in 2H98 Outsourcing. Growing trend of corporate outsourcing of networking needs to ISPs plays right into ASND's strengths That's all, folks. Hope it's useful info. The meeting tone was very low key and everyone seemed relaxed. djane