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 : Newbridge Networks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Doug who wrote (11483)	5/12/1999 11:21:00 AM
From: zbyslaw owczarczyk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18016

<In 2 yrs time, the Carrier Protocols may change again.> Large carrier, where most of revenue is coming from, are not going to invest bilion of $ to change protocol every two years. Look what has been going on over the last few years. Is every carrier jumping from one protocol to another. They would be out of business very soon, if they would follow such path. What they want is technology, which allow them to migrate from one platform to another,with preventing current investment. They are conservative, and invest in what is working and allow them to go forward smoothly. Zbyslaw

To: Doug who wrote (11483)	5/12/1999 11:46:00 AM
From: Thomas Scharf	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18016

>>Carrier Protocols may change again<< To be blunt, what the hell are you talking about? You have it bass-ackwards. The RBOC's & other carriers are big, slow-moving companies...almost like governments. Once they adopt a technology and make the capital investment, they stay with it damn near until hell freezes over. We are much more likely to see a change of protocols at the enterprise level. In fact, we are more likely to see Slobodan Milosovich (sp?) win the Nobel Peace Prize than we are to see the big carriers change their core network protocols after settling on ATM.

To: Doug who wrote (11483)	5/12/1999 2:03:00 PM
From: Peppe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18016

Doug, There is no doubt that building out pure IP networks is more efficient than having an ATM core. Witness new telco builds like QWEST, ENRON, Level 3 to mention a few in the greenfield space. However, we are also seeing some traditional carriers betting on IP, at least as a side bet. Bell Nexxia, owned by Bell Canada, has built an IP core network using IP over SONET routers from CSCO and using NN switches at the edge to deliver Frame Relay service. This is a radical departure from their tradional architecture, which had 36170s at the core and CSCO routers at the edge. In the cable space, we are seeing IP over copper terminating in IP head-end routers. Cable companies have fiber rings in the metro covering areas and are carrying IP traffic across GSR routers as well. By adding IP telephony modems (CMTO is one example) a carrier can offer Internet, IP VPNs, local voice and LD voice without ever using an ATM switch in their network. So yeah, there is a market for ATM core switches. Their is also a huge market for IP only networks for service providers that are using cable as a high speed access technology, new greenfield builds and ILECS that have to protect themselves against the newcomers. As for IP QoS, the market will solve this. See: biz.yahoo.com Cheers, peppe