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 : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jay Couch who wrote (20968)	1/20/1999 4:29:00 PM
From: Rusty Johnson	Respond to of 77397

Coming Soon: A Device to Route Communications on Single System By SETH SCHIESEL In a challenge to makers of traditional communications gear, Cisco Systems Inc., the No. 1 maker of Internet equipment, says it is close to introducing a device that will allow communications carriers to route voice, video and data traffic on a single system, and at a fraction of current costs. The device, which Cisco calls a virtual switch controller, is based on Internet technology and is meant to augment or replace existing communications switches made by companies including Northern Telecom Ltd. of Canada and Ericsson AB of Sweden. But it is Lucent Technologies Inc., invigorated by its recent $20 billion deal to acquire Ascend Communications Inc., that Cisco has identified as its main competition. And it is Lucent, North America's No. 1 maker of traditional switching gear, that is the main target of Cisco's new product; Cisco said Tuesday that the virtual switch controller would give it inroads into an $8 billion chunk of Lucent's business. nytimes.com

To: Jay Couch who wrote (20968)	1/20/1999 5:04:00 PM
From: At-a-boy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77397

< The reason why ATM might fade away, is that IP over SONET can provide the same QoS benefits (presumably) that ATM can, and it can eliminate the need for an ATM switch.> Jay, don't presume...neither IP nor SONET have any means of providing QOS... SONET is strictly a big fat pipe...and IP is simply a connectionless protocol best effort if you will. ATM will only get stronger and more ubiquitous as time goes on and network designers realize the effects of traffic management and control. Do you know how many cos. are involved with the ATM FORUM? Would they be wasting their time and money on a dying technology? DW

To: Jay Couch who wrote (20968)	1/20/1999 7:11:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77397

Jay, >>I think that a big misconception that analysts and investors have is that ATM and SONET are two distinct and different beasts.<< While they are actually two distinct beasts, they often seem inseparable. SONET sits at Layer 1 and ATM at Layer 2. The reasons why ATM and SONET appear to be one and the same, or more appropriately, inseparable, is because: (1) the ATM media convergence sub-layer, by design, fits the sizing of SONET tributaries like a glove. This was no coincidence; (2) no other physical layer container size exists that enjoys anywhere near the same level of adoption, on a widespread basis, and by so many public service providers as SONET. In this respect, the SONET format and its ITU counterpart, Synchronous Digital Hierarchy, or SDH, are now universal. This, despite the eventual disappearance, perhaps, of many of the older SONET/SDH network elements that support it over time. While some of the SONET cages [add-drop muxes, older DSCs, etc.) may go away, the beast itself [SONET] will remain. But these circumstances only make them "seem" synonymous, but they are not. I should add that there are variants of ATM on the books and in practice that can be deployed over physical and wireless media, other than SONET facilities-based, as well. At-a-boy, You are correct. SONET, on its own, does not have the smarts to invoke, interpret, or manage QoS attributes. It can't even distinguish or prioritize different traffic types on its own, other than some forms of traffic within its headers that are used for management purposes only, by the carriers. As for IP's inferiority to ATM, where QoS is concerned, I would differ with your assessment. I would not go the same distance as you in stating that IP will not come up to the levels of quality, over time, that ATM permits. Ongoing improvements in class-of-service (CoS) and QoS characterizations in IP will take place, sometimes borrowing from ATM's experiences, sometimes borrowing some code [sometimes in order to satisfy inter-forum diplomacy]. ATM, likewise, is taking lessons on the chin from IP in many venues. Each model is simply experiencing the same results of natural outgrowths in the industry, each aiming pretty much at the same targets, but each at the same time operating in different dimensions. Those dimensions will get closer in space, and services will continue to be devised to allow passage from one to the other, and fully integrate, in many instances. By the way, if you go over that list of ATM Forum members, I'm sure you'll find a good number of them also participating in [even chairing in some cases] IETF committees and working groups. Regards, Frank C.