The MPLS-OPS Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] RE: ATM-LSR do they use OSPF/IS-IS or PNNI??
Hi Richard, At 18:14 19/04/01 +0100, Donkin, Richard wrote: >> From: Geoff Bennett [mailto:geoff.bennett@marconi.com] >... >> ... In other words, I fully accept that IP VPNs should >> make more money than a basic Internet service. > >Good to hear :) Even though they make more money than "best effort" IP, it's still not clear that ISPs are actually operating at a profit. I think that Prabhu Kavi's post highlighted the difficulty of getting down to the true state of affairs here. I think I'm right in saying that all independent, pure ISPs (not the ones who are becoming ASPs) operate at a loss. Wholesale business can be profitable if they are well run. Where wholesale and retail are mixed, the accountants can shuffle the numbers from one column to another, but the detailed breakdown in confidential. If anyone wants to confirm this, you can stump up the cash for Infonetics' roll call of European ISPs (http://www.infonetics.com). This lists services provided, and the revenues. It's not comprehensive, there are only 70 companies on the report and there are at least three times that number of SPs in Europe alone. > >> 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". > >Many operators are initially interested in the VPN service, i.e. isolational >security - QoS/CoS is seen as a supplement, particularly since it requires >CE management, and is therefore harder to scale, and requires >customer-specific classification/marking, which means more involvement with >customer requirements than a non-CoS VPN service. In other words, something >like today's successful Frame Relay services, but with better provisioning >scalability for the provider, and the option of adding QoS/CoS services on >top. > >> 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'm not clear about the current market for hard-QoS services (partly because >of the CoS factors above, plus the extra QoS parameters that must be >specified, again with customer input), but MPLS TE + CoS features does >enable firmer QoS than currently possible with IP alone. Comparison with ATM >QoS is probably a religious issue, and left as an exercise to the reader... > > > 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. > >Information on profitability is of course hard to come by, and I am on the >technical side not business, but I don't see why MPLS VPNs cannot be more >profitable than the equivalent Frame Relay services, given better >scalability, simpler provisioning (particularly if non-CoS), etc. In fact, >MPLS VPNs can be delivered as FR services, e.g. AT&T's 'IP enabled Frame >Relay' which is really an MPLS VPN service internally. I agree. I just haven't seen the figures broken out to prove it yet. The initial implementations of MPLS VPNs seem to be very admin-intensive, while the NMS tools for Frame Relay and ATM VPNs are very well established. Cheers, Geoff > >Cheers, > >Richard > >> >> 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 >> ================================================================ >> >> ------- >> The MPLS-OPS Mailing List >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml >> Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml >> > >------- >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 ================================================================ ------- The MPLS-OPS Mailing List Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml
|
|