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: Ingenious who wrote (60070)	2/19/1999 8:53:00 PM
From: Gail	Respond to of 61433

Leland, If CISCO needs ATM, then maybe they need to buy Fore Systems. Hey, this could be good. Sorry that this is on the wrong thread but after a couple of margaritas this is the best I can do. I am long on asend and fore. Go Go ASEND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I learned this from Mighty.

To: Ingenious who wrote (60070)	2/19/1999 9:11:00 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 61433

Leland, Are you sure that you are up to date on the latest developments with QoS on IP? Bellcore specs call for no more than 150usec end-to-end delay, however this can be realistically stretched to 200usec and still not be detectable by the human ear. But you are correct that it is the regular delivery of the packets/cells that is important. This can be done in an IP network much the same way that it is done in voice over frame relay environments; through fixed length frames/packets and priority queuing for the voice packets. Not to say that ATM doesn't have its place, but VoIP is real and deployed. In fact LU has made public statements that the will focus their future efforts on ATM and IP solutions. In the same statement though they said that they would not be pursuing VoFR as a strategic direction (I believe that their OEM agreement with ACT Networks will fill this tactical niche). It would take a few minutes to find the URL for the statement, but I can if you would like. The point being is that LU also agrees that voice over IP is a strategic direction that they must pursue. JXM

To: Ingenious who wrote (60070)	2/20/1999 10:26:00 AM
From: The Phoenix	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 61433

Leland, I appreciate your opinion. It should be interesting to watch. Let's put it this way.... Cisco clearly has more to learn about voice than does LU. However at the same time CSCO is not saddled with maintaining a circuit switched revenue stream - a transition which will be as equally challenging for LU/ASND as "learning" voice will be for CSCO. Is should be interesting to watch... I suspect CSCO has hired some pretty smart voice people who know voice very well. Justa guess... OG

To: Ingenious who wrote (60070)	2/23/1999 1:00:00 PM
From: The Phoenix	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 61433

Leland, This could be a long discussion. But let me put it this way. Voice over IP is a given. We all use IP to access the net and therefore if convergence is going to take place it will happen on IP. The next question becomes one of transport. Is it better to transport Voice over IP packets on an IP backbone or on and ATM backbone. This is a more complex issue. I agree that ATM has been fundamentally architected to deliver real time traffic either via CBR or rtVBR but, as Jorj pointed out there are a number of standards which are moving IP towards real time delivery as well. From a carrier perspective is it easier - given that the end points are all IP - to support a single IP based network and hire IP tech weenines or is it easier to support a more complex IP over ATM solution. Yes, IP over ATM (at least on the surface) looks to deliver better latency but will the improvement be detectable by the naked ear....and if not is it worth the additional cost/margin hit. Again, this is a multifaceted issue and is probably too long of discussion to have here on SI. OG