The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] ATM-LSR do they use OSPF/IS-IS or PNNI??
Hi Prabhu, >Your generalization about "loss making Internet Services" is >foolish. Yes, this is a foolishness I share with quite a lot of financial analysts :-) >Several years ago, somebody forgot to tell UUNET that they >were selling loss making Internet services, and they hit >break-even during a period of explosive growth (very hard to >do). I think it is fair to say they are quite profitable >for Worldcom today. UUNET's success has a lot to do with hiring top notch staff, and also having a flexible strategy that takes into account emerging technologies. I'm a great admirer actually because they have been amongst the more aggressive carriers in terms of MPLS piloting. BUT...there is a big difference between wholesale and retail IP sales. I'm talking about IP Services, not raw bandwidth. You need to be aware of the regulatory differences between the US and the rest of the world. While we are all in various stages of deregulation, only in the US did the Telecommunications Act create a legal framework of IXCs, ILECs and CLECs. In contrast in Europe, there are "carriers' carriers", sure, but very often these businesses mix in the notion of retail services, as well as wholesale. In general most people would agree that wholesale bandwidth operation has historically been more profitable than retail. In fact in some cases the wholesale business is profitable enough to offset the losses from retail and allow the company to demonstrate overall profitability. This was helped by generous vendor financing during the "happy time". The problem is that a wholesale market can only maintain price (or profitability) levels while its retail customers are able to stay in business, and that situation is now coming into question. >I also know for a fact that several other large ISPs are >profitable as well, but they are part of larger organizations >that do not publicly break out the P+L of each division. You must have access to information that I don't. Where the P&Ls are combined, isn't this information confidential? One of the sources of debate in this area is that it's so difficult to substatiate these sort of claims, isn't it? >No doubt, ISPs could do better by offering a range of services, >some of which promise higher service quality. But if a service >provider is going to start providing higher revenue services >today, why in the world would they want to do it over ATM >switches? No reason really...except that ATM is the infrastructure that's running today just fine...and supports the services the SPs need in order to be profitable. These days, if your MPLS vendor declines to buy their equipment for you, then ATM is a great alternative as you can demonstrate a real ROI within a sensible timescale. Please forgive me if I appear to be bashing MPLS...I don't intend to. My point is that claims are being made about the technology that are rather exaggerated. This kind of hype ultimately hurts any technology (history teaches us this about FDDI, ISDN, SMDS, ATM, ADSL, etc.). MPLS could be as good as ATM one day. In fact it could be so much better because MPLS is not tied to a single underlying technology. Cheers, Geoff >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Geoff Bennett [mailto:geoff.bennett@marconi.com] >> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 12:20 PM >> To: Donkin, Richard; MP LS; mpls-ops@mplsrc.com; mpls@UU.NET >> Subject: RE: ATM-LSR do they use OSPF/IS-IS or PNNI?? >> >> >> Hi Richard, >> Please read my post carefully. Internet services are >> generally intended to >> mean "best effort". In contrast VPN services are supposed to >> carry some >> kind of added value. In other words, I fully accept that IP >> VPNs should >> make more money than a basic Internet service. >> >> But as I understand it, the added value from IP VPNs either comes from >> security (whether this is "isolational" in nature like an ATM or Frame >> Relay VPN, or "truly secure" as in the case of an ecrypted >> ATM or IPSec VPN >> is up to the user), or from "perceived service enhancement". >> The latter >> could be via a CoS mechanism, which MPLS can potentially >> offer, or from a >> hard QoS mechanism which can only be offered from... >> >> a: A TDM mechanism (like SONET/SDH, which is expensive). >> b: A native ATM service. >> c: An over-provisioned stat mux service (eg. IP), which is >> also expensive >> in the long term. >> >> I know that Orchestream's core business is based on the provision of >> services over an MPLS core, so this may be akin to asking a >> barber if he >> thinks I need a haircut, but is there any evidence that IP >> VPN services are >> "truly profitable" (as opposed to "press release" >> profitable)? the problem >> is that asking most SPs this question will result in "sorry, >> this is very >> confidential information" responses. >> >> I'm not trying to bang a vendor drum here, I'm truly >> interested because of >> the fact that about a dozen European SPs are technically bankrupt from >> being too dependent on IP services ever making money. >> >> Cheers, >> Geoff >> >> >> At 19:38 18/04/01 +0100, Donkin, Richard wrote: >> > >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Geoff Bennett [mailto:geoff.bennett@marconi.com] >> >> Sent: 18 April 2001 11:15 >> >> >> To: MP LS; mpls-ops@mplsrc.com; mpls@uu.net >> >> Subject: Re: ATM-LSR do they use OSPF/IS-IS or PNNI?? >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Niels, >> >> >> >> There may be some confusion arising depending on how you >> >> configure the ATM >> >> switch. In effect there are three modes of operation for >> >> this device... >> >> >> >> 3. Ships in the Night (SIN). In this case, both ATM and >> MPLS Control >> >> Planes operate simultaneously. ATM signalling happens on VCI >> >> 5, and MPLS >> >> signalling on VCI 32. VCs that are set up as a result of >> >> signalling are >> >> "owned" by one or other of these control planes. SIN >> would allow an >> >> operator to continue to run high revenue voice services (and >> >> maybe existing >> >> Frame Relay or native ATM services...they make money too) >> >> over the ATM >> >> "character" of the switch. They can then run the >> loss-making Internet >> > >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >> services over the MPLS character. >> >^^^^^^^^^^ >> > >> >Very amusing... I'm sure this was just flame-bait, but first >> of all, MPLS >> >supports IP services, not just Internet traffic, and you can >> of course run >> >highly profitable IP VPN services over MPLS. >> > >> >Ultimately, ATM/FR services (as seen by the customer) may >> well be carried >> >over an MPLS core, particularly as MPLS becomes one of the >> key signalling >> >mechanisms for all-optical core networks, but since much of >> the traffic >> >running over ATM/FR is actually IP, it may be simpler to >> deliver IP VPNs >> >directly to the customer premises. >> > >> >> Cheers, >> >> Geoff >> > >> >Richard Donkin >> >T: +44 (0)20 7348 1507 >> >Orchestream >> >Avon House, Kensington Village, Avonmore Road, London W14 8TS >> >T: +44 (0)20 7348 1500 F: +44 (0)20 7348 1501 >> >www.orchestream.com >> > >> > >> >-- >> >This communication contains confidential information >> intended solely for >> the use of the individual/s and/or entity or entities to whom it was >> intended to be addressed. If you are not the intended >> recipient, be aware >> that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the >> contents of this >> transmission is prohibited. If you have received this >> communication in >> error, please contact the sender immediately, delete this >> communication >> from your system, and do not disclose its contents to any >> third party, or >> use its contents. Any opinions expressed are solely those of >> the author >> and do not necessarily represent those of Orchestream Ltd or >> its group of >> companies unless otherwise specifically stated. >> > >> >------- >> >The MPLS-OPS Mailing List >> >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml >> >Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml >> > >> ================================================================ >> Geoff Bennett >> Tel: (33) 497 21 43 62 >> Director of Technology, OCTO >> Fax: (33) 497 21 43 50 >> Marconi >> Gaia - Bat. E >> email: geoff.bennett@marconi.com >> BP 123 >> 06903 SOPHIA ANTIPOLIS >> FRANCE >> ================================================================ >> >> > ================================================================ Geoff Bennett Tel: (33) 497 21 43 62 Director of Technology, OCTO Fax: (33) 497 21 43 50 Marconi Gaia - Bat. E email: geoff.bennett@marconi.com BP 123 06903 SOPHIA ANTIPOLIS FRANCE ================================================================
|
|