Comments on: Ethernet Everywhere http://gigaom.com/2005/04/15/ethernet-everywhere/ Trusted Insights and Conversations on the Next Wave of Technology Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:00:29 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Nokia Siemens Networks Buys Atrica « GigaOM http://gigaom.com/2005/04/15/ethernet-everywhere/#comment-627727 Nokia Siemens Networks Buys Atrica « GigaOM Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:48:43 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2005/04/15/ethernet-everywhere/#comment-627727 <p>[...] by Om Malik Thursday, October 25, 2007 at 6:48 AM PT | No comments Ethernet’s growing importance as part of the carrier networks, especially in newer telecom economies such as India and China is one of the main reasons why Nokia [...]</p> [...] by Om Malik Thursday, October 25, 2007 at 6:48 AM PT | No comments Ethernet’s growing importance as part of the carrier networks, especially in newer telecom economies such as India and China is one of the main reasons why Nokia [...]

]]> By: Om Malik on Broadband : » Lucent Buys Riverstone Assets http://gigaom.com/2005/04/15/ethernet-everywhere/#comment-10600 Om Malik on Broadband : » Lucent Buys Riverstone Assets Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:17:39 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2005/04/15/ethernet-everywhere/#comment-10600 <p>[...] Lucent technologies is buying assets of Riverstone Networks , which makes carrier Ethernet routers for $170 million in cash. The deal is a signal that the carrier interest in Ethernet is on an upswing, and as more demands are put on the infrastructure, this market could see a sharp increase. [...]</p> [...] Lucent technologies is buying assets of Riverstone Networks , which makes carrier Ethernet routers for $170 million in cash. The deal is a signal that the carrier interest in Ethernet is on an upswing, and as more demands are put on the infrastructure, this market could see a sharp increase. [...]

]]> By: Iain http://gigaom.com/2005/04/15/ethernet-everywhere/#comment-10599 Iain Fri, 15 Apr 2005 19:03:45 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2005/04/15/ethernet-everywhere/#comment-10599 <p>The ethernet frame has survived the test of time and not much else.</p> <p>Most LAN centric people have gotten away with bashing SONET because of lack of knowledge on their part and the audience (who is much more familiar with LAN networks). In many cases SONET remains a very low cost solution. That said the Ethernet frame wrapped into a lot of RFCs and some MEF tweaks will eventually become the norm. But this is very different that CSMA/CD shared ethernet.</p> <p>Its better to think "IP Networking has won" and IP doesn't care what the physical layer is. Thus the lowest cost Layer 2 is the preferred choice because most features happen at Layer 3 and up.</p> The ethernet frame has survived the test of time and not much else.

Most LAN centric people have gotten away with bashing SONET because of lack of knowledge on their part and the audience (who is much more familiar with LAN networks). In many cases SONET remains a very low cost solution. That said the Ethernet frame wrapped into a lot of RFCs and some MEF tweaks will eventually become the norm. But this is very different that CSMA/CD shared ethernet.

Its better to think “IP Networking has won” and IP doesn’t care what the physical layer is. Thus the lowest cost Layer 2 is the preferred choice because most features happen at Layer 3 and up.

]]> By: Om Malik http://gigaom.com/2005/04/15/ethernet-everywhere/#comment-10598 Om Malik Fri, 15 Apr 2005 16:26:04 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2005/04/15/ethernet-everywhere/#comment-10598 <p>so i am confused by your question/statement.</p> so i am confused by your question/statement.

]]> By: Aswath Rao http://gigaom.com/2005/04/15/ethernet-everywhere/#comment-10597 Aswath Rao Fri, 15 Apr 2005 13:07:24 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2005/04/15/ethernet-everywhere/#comment-10597 <p>I have a long standing question. Let me ask it by making a statement.</p> <p>The original Ethernet has two components - MAC protocol CSMA/CD and the frame format. What made Ethernet ubiquitous is CSMA/CD. But all these modern incarnations do not use CSMA/CD. How could they when they are optical systems?</p> <p>Am I right in my thinking? Metcalfe is faulting SONET because it has 125usec framing structure?</p> I have a long standing question. Let me ask it by making a statement.

The original Ethernet has two components – MAC protocol CSMA/CD and the frame format. What made Ethernet ubiquitous is CSMA/CD. But all these modern incarnations do not use CSMA/CD. How could they when they are optical systems?

Am I right in my thinking? Metcalfe is faulting SONET because it has 125usec framing structure?

]]>