EE Times article on RPR

[Raj Sharma <raj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In the October 16th, EE Times there is an announcement that

Lantern will be the first vendor to have an RPR based switch.

(page 59). Well that certainly puts a lot of pressure on the gorup

to come with a standard before Lantern ships their product.

 

Given the amount of disclosure and therof - contribution to

common understanding, that Lantern has done so far this

is quite to the contrary. I am unable to fathom when Lantern

will have the gumption to disclose so that we can nail a standard

(I am assuming with all companies partcipating equally)

within the next 10 months before they ship their first RPR

switch.  I am a bit puzzled with Lantern's overall statement

to the press on Luminous' strategy but least

bothered about it since we are shipping boxes now.

 

This certainly rocks my confidence in where RPR is headed

on the eve of its PAR approval. My general feeling is that by

the time RPR gets done Cisco, Nortel. Luminous and other

RPR aspiring companies will have to modify their electronics

to comply. If, any one company will dictate standards to the

rest might as well go into hibernation even before the PAR gets

approved. 

 

BTW, RPR has been positioned as having one leg above ethernet

in the MAN space by the author.

Perhaps, our wise study group did not look close enough to notice

something so obvious to a technical writter and Lantern.

 

Loring Wirble in the article states:

 

".....That is why Lantern bypassed 10 GE architectures and went

straight to RPR. Ethernet's inherent congestion problems means that Ethernet

alone in the MAN not only cannot be over subscribed with services,

*** it cannot be fully subscribed to physical capacity ***........"

 

I clearly fail to understand why ethernet cannot be over subscribed

(gain through statistcial multiplexing) and fully subscribed to physical

capacity. Is Lantern saying that in 10 GE you cannot use 10 Gbps because

of some inherent limitation to the standard ?

 

I am sure RPRSG can come up with  a legitimate and more intelligent

argument in favor of RPR than the crude and an illiterate's view

given here.

 

We are not off to a good start here.......