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: Bindusagar Reddy who wrote (52574)	8/22/1998 12:40:00 PM
From: jach	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 61433

<20 Gbps requires a control card...> tech history is full of lastest, greatest and fastest products that never took off; speed is just one of the areas, actually is not even a key one; again, mkt needs in the Internet arena are port densities, relialbilty, inter-operability, multi-service and speed; in reality service providers (at the edge and at the pre-core level) do not actually care much about speed, one can wait a few seconds more; and aren't we quite familair with this icon now- although raw speed is not, in multi-service for circuit (voice) support, timing and proper speed is - for enterprise, support for very high-densities such as thousands of T1s is key, again not raw speed - for 19$ Internet customers, port densities and proper queuing (so they can wait for a while) and not raw speed -

To: Bindusagar Reddy who wrote (52574)	8/22/1998 1:00:00 PM
From: The Phoenix	Respond to of 61433

Bind, I can't remember the last time I saw a post with so much incorrect information. I'll start with BPX/MGX: I'm sure that you are familiar with the configuration of the BPX - and any 20 Gbps BPX requires a control card called the BCC-4. Although the BCC-4 has been on the price list for over a year...it's still not available until the end of the year. Available and on the price list. Cisco has a policy of not allowing products on the price list unless they are within 30 days of shipping. Cisco talks about Stratacom equipment scaling to 20 Gbps and supporting IOS and Tag switching...nothing has happened cisco.com SUPERCOMM, Atlanta, GA -- June 9, 1998 -- Alcatel and Cisco Systems, Inc. announced today interoperability between Alcatel's IP@ATMT solution and Cisco's Tag Switching. This interoperability will be demonstrated in Alcatel's booth June 7-11 at SUPERCOMM '98 in Atlanta, Georgia. .....etc.... So, whoever sent you that post is ill informed regarding MGX and BPX products... As for the TGX Core switch: The TGX has nothing to do with the original STRM products and it's positioning as a "core" switch shows what a dismal failure the STRM acquisition was. it is basically an upgrade to the LAN based LS1010. Although I think this fellow is right that the TGX is 1010 based remember the company mentioned that Strm products generated $1B in revenue last fiscal year. Not bad for a failure.. When TGX is out CSCO should grow their ATM switch revenue. The TGX looks like a pretty awesome product to me and although it isn't available until later this year I do think that this is reason to maintain a healthy paranoia about CSCO in the core. Cisco knows it needs to do better in the core in order to grow revenues at their blistering pace. nothing to do with the Stratacom products....NO stratacom engineer worked on the TGX. The TGX has nothing to do with the original STRM products Well, this isn't exactly true. A number of technologies including TAG and Cisco IP+ATM technology were jointly developed. Nonetheless, where the product comes from is of little importance. It interesting to note that in one breath the fellow says what a "dismal failure" the Strm acquisition was (implying they were not up to spec for the ATM game) and in the other he uses their lack of involvement on the TGX to imply that it's not a worthy product. TGX is worthy... I think that the TGX is a renamed Catalyst 8500 MSR (not CSR), They both have the MMC chipset, same port densities and bandwidth, etc... So, I think that Cisco took the LAN based 8500 and is just renaming it the TGX and positioning it as a Carrier Core switch - very lame. Nope...wrong. I suspect that they used the same chassis for economies of scale, but other than that I think your author is 100% wrong here. . AnyFlow 5000 chipset which is designed for lan traffic...it has a packet shreading function which is totally not needed in a Core ATM switch. yeah...so, they don't use that function... PLUS the OC-48 interface from MMC (called an XPIF) is not available for customer tests until December/January. Howver, Cisco is in trials with OC48...perhaps not the TGX.. for more TGX take a look at... cisco.com OG