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 : Voice-on-the-net (VON), VoIP, Internet (IP) Telephony -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Regis McConnell who wrote (735)	6/11/1998 12:11:00 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 3178

Regis, it's probably just me, but I have a hard time capturing the essence of just who these people are. Are we talking about MRV the chip company? Or NBase the hub manufacturer? Or are we discussing the work done by Xyplex. Each of them have a presence on nbase.com, with Xyplex having its own site at xyplex.com If I were MRV I'd invest a couple of bucks and hire a good identity consultant. Now, that's not all bad, except that the press release discusses an nbase product, or at least how the GigaFrame hub would be implicated in a major way with the optical advances they've announced (which itself is a mystery to me). I can't find anything on either web site that explains the points that were brought out in the PR. The PR states that they've achieved a breakthrough. It goes on to say that this 'will' result in something down the road, more or less, but it doesn't say how or what that new something is. I have no grounds for doubting that something is imminent, but unless they state what it is, I will remain reserved on the matter. They talk about extended distances covered by Ethernet, which is all well and good, but do I want that? I don't think so, at least not under normal conditions. If I had a great distance of raw fiber at my disposal in the WAN, I'd either route over it, or if I had a company of any size which had legacy systems that I still needed to support, as most companies do, I'd probably want to make better use of it in some multi-protocol fashion. I'd only want to use GE if I had many wavelengths in my arsenal, and I could spare one of them to create a transparent LAN operation platform provided other matters didn't prevent me from doing that, such as security risks, some broadcast concerns, and costs (and administrative headaches) associated with off premises encryption measures. But maybe this is what their next statement will unveil: the fact that they will make an abundance of wavelengths available. And if that is the case, then I see their advantage. I just wish they'd come out and say it and eliminate the guesswork. The product release discusses routing, yet I cannot find anything that resembles a Layer 3 RFC anywhere in their web site product descriptions for the GigaFrame. The only thing I find is references to IEEE Layer 2 802.x stuff. Switching at Layer 3 in this case is not the commonly referenced routing, in the sense that routing takes place over the Internet using RFC-compliant protocols and algorithms. DWDM-associated routing in the optical domain is just around the corner, or so I am told, but MRVC is talking about switching wavelengths, not routing them... what's the difference? I don't know, and they don't elaborate enough in the PR to give me a clue, nor do they cover it at all, to the best of my knowledge, in either of their web sites. If anyone can tell me what this company is doing in this release, or more to the point, how they propose to achieve what they say they are going to do, I'd be much obliged. In the meantime, to answer your question, it's a continuing enigma to me. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Again, maybe it's just me. Regards, Frank Coluccio

To: Regis McConnell who wrote (735)	6/11/1998 7:45:00 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3178

Regis, I re-read this article several times, and perhaps I was too quick to make some of my points, although the very need to re-visit the release is evidence enough that MRVC, for their own sake, have a need to be clearer on how they present themselves. For the sake of fairness and to cover my own end where I may have been too quick the first time around, I offer the following observations with noted qualifications: MRV does make mention, for instance, that there is the capability to support four wavelengths of GE carrying traffic. Is this primarily intended as a carrier administered service, or one that end users possess when they own the glass? In other words, who is the intended direct customer for this equipment? If it's the carrier, then there are TMN (Telecommunications Management Network) and NEBS compliance issues, for example. And if it is the end user organization, then there may be a need to emphasize the SNMP and CPE end of things. Also, they mention the ability to support multiple traditional high speed OC-"n" rates of SONET as the intended future capability that I previously stated was unclear. While this is not exactly earth-shattering new, i.e., it does not add anything to the state of the art, as the release would like to project, it at least, in all fairness, does make the statement that I said previously was missing. It just didn't rock my boat sufficiently when I read it the first time for me to consider it as 'news.' A fellow poster here on SI has informed me that they have forwarded my observations to the company, and I am awaiting their reply. I will keep you posted. Regards, Frank Coluccio