|
|
By Craig Clausen and Dick Tomlinson, PhD.
It took awhile. We’ve waited, and waited, and waited and finally Ethernet seems ready to emerge into an explosive growth phase in carrier networks. Five years ago, we issued our first report on Ethernet in the Metro Area Network (MAN) with a long, deep look at Gigabit Ethernet. Then, Ewhen thernet technology seemed tantalizingly close to having all the attributes needed to be the dominant access technology in the metro arena. But taking the last few steps proved excruciatingly slow. Ethernet still lacked the standards, robustness and features required for wide-spread deployment in the carrier networks. Now that has changed. For a range of reasons, we expect Carrier Ethernet to follow an impressive growth path and, eventually, dominate the metro access market.
Setting the Stage: Standards Setting
Today Carrier Ethernet stands about where Frame Relay (a technology it is rapidly replacing) did in 1984. That was the year that an industry alliance - the Frame Relay Forum - issued standards that enabled the adoption of the technology as a universal transport mechanism, and carriers began a serious roll-out. This ignited 20 years of growth for Frame Relay that led to some two million ports in service by 2004. The Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF – if this body were formed today it would probably be called the CEF- see sidebar) was formed in 2004 to create the standards required to make Ethernet suitable for carrier-grade WAN service. The MEF, an industry body supported by equipment suppliers, telecom carriers and services companies, has continued to develop and issue a series of technical standards. It now certifies carriers and vendors (or more accurately the services and equipment provided by each) that meet those standards.
The tables below show Metro Ethernet service providers (those with MEF certified services are asterisked) and all vendors producing MEF certified equipment.
Table 1:
Leading Metro Ethernet
Service Providers (U.S.)
2006 |
AboveNet |
Charter Communications |
IP Networks |
|
Alpheus Communications |
Cincinnati Bell |
Level 3 Communications |
Time Warner Cable* |
American Fiber Systems |
Cogent Communications |
McLeodUSA |
Time Warner Telecom |
AT&T* |
Cox Communications |
Met-Net Communications* |
Verizon/Verizon Business |
Bellsouth |
Embarq |
One Communications |
Windstream |
Broadview Networks |
Expedient |
Optimum Lightpath* |
XO Communications |
Broadwing |
General Communication, Inc. (GCI) |
PPL Telcom |
Xspedius |
CenturyTel |
Globix |
Qwest Communications* |
Yipes Enterprise Services, Inc. |
These standards development and certification processes have added the requisite order to the sector to provide essential comfort to carriers and vendors,
|
|
"“Carrier vs. Metro Ethernet”
When Ethernet made the transition from a distance-limited LAN protocol to a WAN protocol, it moved first to the campus and then out into metro area local fiber networks. Therefore, for historical reasons, it was called “Metro Ethernet”. Today, with more robust, carrier-grade features and long-haul, transcontinental reach, the term “Carrier Ethernet” has come into prominence and is favored by the Metro Ethernet forum itself. |
|
setting the stage for rational investment and continued growth.
Table 2:
Vendors with MEF
Certified Equipment
|
Actelis |
Ciena |
Hatteras Networks |
RAD Data Communications |
Adtran |
Cisco Systems |
Huawei Technologies |
Siemens |
ADVA |
Scientific Atlanta |
Huawei 3com |
Telco Systems |
Aktino |
Corrigent Systems |
Juniper Networks |
Tellabs |
Alcatel |
Ericsson |
Lucent Technologies |
T|pack |
Anda Networks |
Extreme Networks |
MRV |
Turin Networks |
Atrica |
Foundry Networks |
Nortel |
UT Starcom |
Canoga Perkins |
Fujitsu |
Omnitron Systems Technology (OST) |
World Wide Packets |
It’s a Natural, But…
Ethernet is a natural for transporting IP. Bytes pass efficiently from the LAN to the WAN —they don’t have to be chopped up and transmitted to the WAN with lots of extra overhead or empty packets. The CPE-network interface can be Ethernet “plug and play” without additional equipment, such as expensive WAN cards. This compatibility, along with its characteristic simplicity, low-cost and universal interface, made Ethernet metro transport instantly attractive to customers’ IT staffs and some competitive carriers. If only the rest of the story had continued that smoothly.
While end-users were receptive to the idea of “Ethernet everywhere,” some remained suspicious that the Ethernet protocol, developed for the LAN environment, might prove too fragile for WAN use. These concerns were reinforced by the fact that initial Carrier Ethernet offerings were “best efforts only” and were not backed by any Service Level Agreements (SLAs). End-users expected carriers to offer Metro Ethernet SLAs comparable to those for traditional services (e.g. Frame Relay or DS3).
Carriers have, indeed, begun offering SLAs, although not up to the standards of traditional transport like Frame Relay. Interestingly, even with SLAs now available, “best efforts” Ethernet services currently outsell those with SLA guarantees. Apparently many end-users are in effect saying, “We wanted to know that you had the confidence in your service to offer an SLA. We didn’t mean that we actually wanted to pay for it.”
|
|
|
| |
|
|
