| |
| |
| The Telecom Network for Professionals and Users Network is not currently active and cannot accept new posts | IP - not the only game in town? | Views: 656 | Aug 23, 2006 6:01 am | | IP - not the only game in town? | # | Ken Hilving | |
New Page 1
One of the problems with convergence is protocol,
starting with IP.
While we tend to think in terms of Internet and
IP, there are alternatives. Dedicated circuits come to mind, followed by frame
relay. One option that hasn't gotten much exposure but may offer some real
advantages is gigabit Ethernet via fiber optics. The fiber overcomes the
distance limitations associated with Ethernet. Ethernet allows for layer 2
switching versus IP based routing. From a private network perspective, this may
be an ideal way of lowering overheads and improving latency and jitter issues.
The same applies to other transports such as a
private radio network. The IP headers are only one solution to source and
destination, and are necessary only when joining the public Internet where IPv4
is the required protocol by agreement (not technical requirement). In 1985, the
choice of protocol was still being debated, and Ethernet and Token Ring were
still fighting for dominance.
Moving out of IP opens up other opportunities for
improved performance and efficiency in other applications besides voice.
Anyone using a Layer 2 Ethernet carrier willing
to share their experiences?
Anyone interested in assistance in finding
providers may PM me for specifics.
Private Reply to Ken Hilving | Aug 24, 2006 5:40 am | | re: IP - not the only game in town? | # | Jatin... Ryze and Shine... | | Hey Ken,
I am sure that all of us and the industry innovaters have not overlooked the various possible options of different protocols and service delivery mechanisms for offering the best of the breed services.
According to my understanding of the market situations, not only the technology but anything that an end customer gets in touch with and appeals to the masses has to be cost effective.
FTTH/FTTC would definately resolve the jitter and latency issues but the cost of deployment really does not make it efective for a retail user, though it is being widely use by the enterprises and are definately not the masses.
What do you think further on that...
cheers!!! JatinPrivate Reply to Jatin... Ryze and Shine... | Aug 24, 2006 8:57 pm | | re: re: IP - not the only game in town? | # | Ken Hilving | |
New Page 1
Jatin, you raise some interesting points that
deserve some consideration.
From a marketing perspective, "cost effective"
applies when taken in the context of the five currencies people use - time,
money, security, knowledge, and prestige. Consumerism exists only because people
deal in all five currencies and products can find their "cost effective" niche.
"Money is rarely the issue, but when
money is the issue it is the only issue."
Fiber to the home or fiber to the curb is a nice
thought, and it is becoming more common in new developments here in the US. The
economics of this are simple - installing fiber during initial construction
costs little more than material at that time, and the cost is buried in the
price of the new home to be recouped over 30 years. For the carriers, once a
fiber infrastructure is in place at no cost to them its easier to take advantage
of it than not. Fiber trunks are routinely installed when major road arteries
are reworked. Again, its the economics of reinstalling copper versus installing
fiber once the existing facility is compromised by road construction.
Unfortunately, this approach will only get FTTH/FTTC
to new developments, For existing neighborhoods, conversion will occur when the
providers are faced with a major rework due to natural disaster or
infrastructure degradation due to age. To count on fiber anytime soon in these
areas would be foolish.
It is possible today to get up to gigabit
Ethernet paths between major metropolitan areas in the US, and to some parts of
Japan and Europe, much the way dedicated circuits are ordered. Bandwidth on
demand capabilities are available to scale up and down in near real time as
needed. Running a long haul Ethernet backbone can be significantly easier
and more effective than running a routed backbone or using the Internet as the
backbone for many companies. This can include companies that in turn provide
services to individual users such as telephony services.
What I am suggesting is a review and
selection based on what makes the best business and technical sense. Is IP the
right choice for the telecommunications you are supporting?
Private Reply to Ken Hilving | Aug 25, 2006 5:17 am | | re: re: re: IP - not the only game in town? | # | Jatin... Ryze and Shine... | | Hi
Thanks for the insight into the curencies and more importantly the fact about how US is incorporating the FTTC/FTTH in the basic construction of infrastructure. This would go places, I believe.
Gigabit ethernet seems to be a good option for the longhaul as it would reduce latency to a great extent, but that would include deployment of interfacing equipment with IP networks. If the service provider has the choice between between laying a new type of equipment as compared to the proven standard technology, I presume he would go for the latter.
My point here is that if the service provider has the choice, he would go in for an IP infrastructure as we have gone too far into IP both on access and backhaul. There is definately MPLS and GMPLS playing a significant role at the backhaul and now with convergence becoming an important part of the BIG picture, if I may cal it, whih is again based on IP, he has to be driven to that.
What are your thoughts on this?
cheers!!! JatinPrivate Reply to Jatin... Ryze and Shine... | Aug 25, 2006 8:32 pm | | re: re: re: re: IP - not the only game in town? | # | Ken Hilving | |
New Page 1
☺Wasn't that
the same argument against moving off the TDM based PSTN?
Private Reply to Ken Hilving | Aug 28, 2006 5:29 am | | re: re: re: re: re: IP - not the only game in town? | # | Jatin... Ryze and Shine... | | Not too sure, would you please elaborate on that... Private Reply to Jatin... Ryze and Shine... | Aug 31, 2006 6:43 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: IP - not the only game in town? | # | Ken Hilving | |
New Page 1
The public switched telephone network (PSTN)
represented a significant infrastructure investment based on the time division
multiplexing (TDM) of DS0 channels over copper, fiber, and microwave. The
investment began in the early 1960's and continued to be the primary
infrastructure investment through the 1990's by carriers and many, perhaps most,
corporate private networks.
The move towards IP based communications was only
one of many protocols used in the 1980's. In the 1990's, it became the dominant
data approach with the advent and acceptance of html, which made the Internet
useful to the masses. It became the dominant communications protocol only within
the past decade, I believe.
Your argument that the carriers would not
consider a change to other protocols and approaches than IP ignores the
historical precedent of IP.
Private Reply to Ken Hilving | Sep 27, 2006 2:00 pm | | re: IP - not the only game in town? | # | Priyank Chandra | | My view on IP being only game in town is that it is largely driven by equipment vendor associations.
Vendor promote the technology not only based on which technology is good but for what they can create more market based on their current kitty.
Solutions today are moving up from layer 2 to Layer3 mainly on MPLS , reasons can be Security, less jitter, low packet losses, but the priority will depend on individual customers and network requirements.
So I think industry is moving up to layer 3 now.Private Reply to Priyank Chandra | |
| |
| |