ECI Telecom’s next-generation metro packet transport family
- The Native Packet Transport (NPT) family targets the cost-conscious metro network
- Supports Ethernet, MPLS-TP and TDM
- ECI claims a 65% lower total cost of ownership using MPLS-TP and native TDM
NPT's positioning as part of the overall network. Source: ECI Telecom
ECI Telecom has announced a product line for packet transport in the metro. The Native Packet Transport (NPT) family aims to reduce the cost of operating packet networks while supporting traditional time division multiplexing (TDM) traffic.
“Eventually, in terms of market segments, it [NPT] is going to replace the multi-service provisioning platform,” says Gil Epshtein, product market manager at ECI Telecom. “The metro is moving to packet and so it is moving to new equipment to support this shift.”
The NPT is ECI’s latest optimised multi-layer transport (OMLT) architecture, and is the feeder or aggregator platform to the optical backbone, addressed by the company's Apollo OMLT product family announced in 2011.
“The whole point of shifting to packet is to lower the [transport] cost-per-bit”
Gil Epshtein, ECI Telecom
Packet transport issues
“Building carrier-grade packet transport is proving more costly than anticipated,” says Epshtein. “Yet the whole point of shifting to packet is to lower the [transport] cost-per-bit.”
Several packet control plane schemes can be used for the metro, a network that can be divided further into the metro core and metro access/ aggregation. The two metro segments can use either IP/MPLS (Internet Protocol/ Multiprotocol Label Switching) or MPLS-TP (Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile). Alternatively, the two metro segments can use different schemes: the metro core IP/MPLS and metro access MPLS-TP, or MPLS-TP for the core and Ethernet for metro access.
Based on total cost of ownership (TCO) analysis, ECI argues that the most cost-effective packet control plane scheme is MPLS-TP. “The NPT product line is based on MPLS-TP, designed to simplify and make MPLS affordable for transport networks,” says Epshtein.
Three issues contribute to the cost of building and operating packet-based transport. The first is capital expenditure (capex) – the cost of the equipment and what is needed to make the network carrier grade such as redundancy and availability.
The second is operational expenditure or opex. Factors include the training and expertise needed by the staff, and their number and salaries. In turn, issues such as network availability, equipment footprint and the power consumption requirements.
“More and more operators view opex as a key factor in their TCO considerations,” says Epshtein. Operators look at the entire network and want to know what its cost of operation will be.
A third cost factor is the existence of both TDM and packet data in the operators’ networks. “When you look at the overall TCO, you need to take this into consideration,” says Epshtein. For some operators it [TDM] is more significant but it is always there, he says.
The NPT family is being aimed at various customers. One is operators that want to extend MPLS from the core to the metro network. “Here, TDM is not a factor,” says Epshtein. “We find this in wireless backhaul, in triple-play, carriers-of-carriers and business applications.” The second class of operators is those with legacy TDM traffic. Also being targeted are utilities. “Here reliability and security are key.”
Analysis
The choice of packet control plane - whether to use IP/MPLS or MPLS-TP - impacts both capex and opex. How the TDM traffic is handled, whether using circuit emulation over packets or native TDM, also impacts overall costs.
According to ECI, the number of network elements grows some tenfold with each segment transition towards the network edge. In the network core there are 100s of network elements, 1000s in the metro core and 10,000s in the metro access. The choice of packet control plane for these network elements clearly impacts the overall cost, especially in the cost-conscious metro as the number of platforms grows. “A network element based on MPLS-TP is lower cost than IP/MPLS,” says Epshtein. “The main reason being it is a lot less complex.”
He stresses that MPLS-TP is not a competing standard to IP/MPLS; IP/MPLS is the defacto standard in the network core. Rather, MPLS-TP is a derivative designed for transport. The debate here, says Epshtein, is what is best for metro.
“The main difference between the two standards is the control plane, not the data plane,” says Epshtein. MPLS-TP removes unnecessary control plane functions supported by IP/MPLS leading to simpler metro platform functionality, and simpler management and operation of the equipment. “We believe MPLS-TP is more suited to the metro due to its simplicity, scalability and capex benefits.”
Working with market research company, ACG Research, the TCO analysis (opex and capex) over five years using MPLS-TP was 55% lower than using IP/MPLS for metro packet transport (with no TDM traffic).
The cost savings was even greater with both packet and some TDM traffic.
Using the NPT, capex goes up 5% due to the line cards needed to support native TDM traffic. But for IP/MPLS using circuit emulation capex increases 37%, resulting in the NPT having a 66% lower capex overall. The resulting opex is also 64% lower. Overall TCO is lowered by 65% using MPLS-TP and native TDM compared to IP/MPLS and circuit emulation.
NPT portfolio
ECI says its NPT supports circuit emulation and native TDM. Having circuit emulation enables the network to converge to packet only. But native TDM simplifies the interfacing to legacy networks and also has lower latency than circuit emulation.
The NPT packet switch and TDM switch fabrics and the traffic types carried over each. Source: ECI Telecom
There are five NPT platforms ranging from the NPT-1020 for metro access to the NPT-1800 for the metro core. The NPT-1020 has a 10 or 50 Gigabit packet switch capacity option and a TDM capacity of 2.5 Gigabit. The NPT-1800 has a packet switching capacity of 320 or 640 Gigabit and 120 Gigabit for TDM.
The metro aggregation NPT-1600 and 1600c (160 Gig packet/120 Gig TDM capacity) platforms are available now. The remaining platforms will be available in the first half of 2013.
ECI says it has already completed several trials with existing and new customers. "We have already won a few deals," says Epshtein.
The platforms are managed using ECI’s LightSoft software, the same network management system used for the Apollo. ECI has added software specifically for packet transport including service provisioning, performance management and troubleshooting.
Further information, click here.
Cisco's P-OTS: Denser and distributed
Cisco claims the CPT is its second-generation packet optical transport system (P-OTS), complementing the ONS 15454. But some analysts view the CPT as the vendor’s first true packet optical transport product.
"This announcement is an acknowledgement that P-OTS equipment is important and that operators are insisting on it"
Sterling Perrin, Heavy Reading
The CPT family comprises the CPT 200 and CPT 600 platforms, while the CPT 50 port extension shelf enables the CPT products to be implemented as a distributed switch architecture.
Gazettabyte spoke to Stephen Liu, manager, service provider marketing at Cisco Systems about the announcement and asked three analysts on the significance of Cisco’s CPT, how the product family advances packet optical transport and how the platforms will benefit operators.
Carrier packet transport family
The CPT platforms are aimed at operators transitioning their metro networks from traditional SONET/SDH to packet-based transport.
Cisco says the CPT is its second-generation P-OTS. A first generation P-OTS supports dense wavelength division multiplexing (DWDM) with some Ethernet capability. “The truly integrated P-OTS that unites the simplicity of optical delivery with packet routing is in the second generation,” says Cisco’s Liu.
Market research firm, Heavy Reading, defines P-OTS as a platform that combines SONET/SDH, connection-oriented Ethernet, DWDM and, depending on where the platform is used within the network, also optical transport network (OTN) switching and reconfigurable optical add-drop multiplexers (ROADMs). The global P-OTS market will total $870 million in 2010, says Heavy Reading.
The CPT combines DWDM, OTN, Ethernet, multi-protocol label switching – transport profile (MPLS-TP) and ROADMs. MPLS-TP is a stripped down version of the multi-protocol label switching (MPLS) protocol and is used for point-to-point communication. MPLS-TP’s ability to interoperate with IP-MPLS allows operators to combine packet-based technology with transport control in the access and aggregation part of the network, says Cisco.
So what is new with the introduction of the CPT platforms? “The ability to do high-density packet optical transport with MPLS-TP,” says Liu.
Cisco has fitted 160 Gigabit-per-second (Gbps) switching capacity into the two-rack-sized CPT 200 platform and 480Gbps in the six-rack CPT 600. The respective platform port counts are 176 Gigabit Ethernet (GbE) and 352 GbE ports, says Liu.
Cisco also stresses the functionality integrated into the dense platforms. “We have ROADMs coming together with transponders that do the electrical-to-optical conversion, and the TDM/Ethernet switching functions,” says Liu. “It takes about 30 inches of ROADM/transponder and TDM/Ethernet switching functions on separate platforms; with the CPT it is condensed into 10.5 inches of rack space.”
The result, says Liu, is a 60% operational expense (OpEx) saving in power consumption, cooling and space. Cisco also claims that unifying the management of the optical and packet transport domains will result in a 20% OpEx saving.
The CPT 50 satellite shelf complements the CPT platforms. The CPT 50 has 44 GbE ports and four 10GbE uplink ports. “The shelf can be deployed locally next to a CPT platform or up to 80km away, but from a management point-of-view it all looks like a single box,” says Liu.
The platforms do not support 40 or 100Gbps interfaces but that is part of the product roadmap, says Liu. Earlier this year, Cisco acquired 40 and 100 Gigabit transport specialist, CoreOptics. Nor will the platform family be limited to the metro. “Long-haul opportunities are certainly open to us,” says Liu.
Cisco says that the CPT platforms are being trialled and will be available from 1Q of 2011. Several large operators including Verizon, XO Communications and BT are in various stages of platform evaluation.
Analysts’ comments
Sterling Perrin, senior analyst at Heavy Reading
We believe the CPT is Cisco’s most significant optical announcement since its acquisition spree at the beginning of the decade.
Cisco has always positioned its legacy product, the ONS 15454, as packet transport but really it is a multi-service provision platform (MSPP) – or as Cisco calls it, a multi-service transport platform (MSTP) – with SONET/SDH and DWDM. We have not counted that as a P-OTS. What it is doing now is entering the [P-OTS] market.
Cisco is an IP router and Ethernet switch company and is strong on IP-over-DWDM. It has pushed that story to operators for years and while that has been happening, there has been the packet optical transport trend which has been gaining steam. Vendors have either used P-OTS for next-generation networks or have had a dual strategy of switches and routers and P-OTS. Cisco have always been in the switch-router space. This announcement is an acknowledgement that P-OTS equipment is important and that operators are insisting on it.
Cisco will be competitive with the CPT based on its newness. The density looks impressive – 480Gbps for the six-rack and 160Gbps for the two-rack platform. But this is a generational thing; in time as everyone else releases their next product, they will also have a dense platform. But for now it is a differentiator. The remote shelf is also interesting but it is unclear to what degree that will be telling with operators.
As for the operators mentioned in the Cisco press release, Verizon has already picked Fujitsu and Tellabs as the P-OTS suppliers for its metro and regional networks. The big opportunity with Verizon is in the core, and the first two CPT platforms are not for core.
Mention of BT is also interesting as the operator is in favour of the opposite approach, based on switches and routers from Alcatel-Lucent and Juniper, and has moved away from P-OTS. XO is probably the most likely operator [of the three mentioned] to adopt the platform and already uses Cisco’s ONS 15454.
The opportunity for Cisco is protecting the ONS 15454 customer base that is looking to move from MSPPs to packet optical transport.
Heavy Reading believes the standalone DWDM and MSPP markets are declining, but will remain large markets for the next two years. Accordingly, it makes sense for Cisco to continue supporting the legacy product line.
Eve Griliches, managing partner, ACG Research
The CPT is more along the lines of a purpose built P-OTS than some variations that have came to market. It has all the requirements a P-OTS should have including a hybrid switch fabric that supports packet and OTN. I suspect the packet functionality is very good, and possibly better than other transport carriers have delivered, but the operators are still testing and they will speak soon. I do know that operators I've spoken with are already very impressed with what they’ve seen.
"Operators I've spoken with are already very impressed with what they’ve seen"
Eve Griliches, ACG Research
In terms of how the CPT will benefit operators, the CPT is a metro aggregation P-OTS box, and it will have to compete with Tellabs and Fujitsu who have been shipping equipment for the metro for two years. But Cisco will likely bring better packet functionality, which is what operators have been waiting for.
Rick Talbot, senior analyst, transport and routing infrastructure, Current Analysis
Cisco is introducing a product into a space recently defined by other vendors – packet-based access/ aggregation devices for backhaul, currently mobile backhaul. Example devices are the Alcatel-Lucent 1850 TSS-100, ECI Telecom’s BG-64 and the Ericsson OMS 1410.
"The CPT will likely blur the line between metro P-OTS and packet-based access/ aggregation devices"
Rick Talbot, Current Analysis
CPT brings quite a significant advantage in port density and packet-switching capacity. The CPT 200’s 160Gbps capacity is twice that of the OMS 1410, the current leader in that category. The CPT 600 boasts the capacity of a full metro P-OTS in a chassis the size of a small MSPP. From Cisco’s perspective, the CPT product line is not about introducing a new access/ aggregation device but extending the metro architecture closer to cell towers and end-users.
The CPT will likely blur the line between metro P-OTS and packet-based access/ aggregation devices. It has a modest size and power consumption. It also extends MPLS, in the form of MPLS-TP, to the very edge of the operator’s network, enabling a single end-to-end packet-forwarding method.
The high capacity and low-power consumption of the CPT will, of course, save operators OpEx and CapEx. In addition, the platform extends a single connection-oriented management view to the end-user site, minimising management expense.
The flexibility of the platform will further benefit the operator if and when the operator deploys cache content storage at the network edge. But such deployment of servers beyond the central office remains to be seen.
Related links:
See also Intune Networks' packet optical transport platform
Cisco Systems' coherent power move
Cisco Systems announced its intent to acquire the optical transmission specialist CoreOptics back in May. CoreOptics has digital signal processing expertise used to enhance high-speed long-haul dense wavelength division multiplexing (DWDM) optical transmission. Cisco’s acquisition values the German company at US $99m.
"Let me be clear, we don’t believe 100Gbps serial will dominate the market for a long time, or 40Gbps for that matter"
Mark Lutkowitz, Telecom Pragmatics
“It has become clear that Cisco, with a few exceptions, has cornered the coherent market for 40 Gig and 100 Gig,” says Mark Lutkowitz, principal at market research firm, Telecom Pragmatics, which has published a report on Cisco's move.
Prior to Cisco’s move, several system vendors were working with CoreOptics for coherent transmission technology at 40 and 100 Gigabit-per-second (Gbps). Nokia Siemens Networks (NSN) was one and had invested in the company, another was Fujitsu Network Communications. Telecom Pragmatics believes other firms were also working with CoreOptics including Xtera and Ericsson (CoreOptics had worked with Marconi before it was acquired by Ericsson).
ACG Research in its May report Cisco/ CoreOptics Acquisition: What Does It Mean for the Packet Optical Transport Space? also claimed that the Cisco acquisition would set back NSN and Ericsson and listed other system vendors such as ADVA Optical Networking and Transmode that may have been considering using CoreOptics’ 100Gbps multi-source agreement (MSA) design.
“The mere fact that you have all these companies working with CoreOptics - and we don’t know all of them – says it all,” says Lutkowitz. “This was the company they were initially going to be depending on and Cisco made a power move that was brilliant.”
With Cisco bringing CoreOptics in-house, these system vendors will need to find a new coherent technology partner. “The next chance would be with a company like Opnext coming out with a sub-system,” says Lutkowitz. “There is no doubt about it – this was a major coup for Cisco.”
For Cisco, the deal is important for its router business more than its optical transmission business. “In terms of transceivers that go into routers and switches it was absolutely essential that Cisco comes up with coherent technology,” says Lutkowitz. Cisco views transport as a low-margin business unlike IP core routers. “This [acquisition] is about protecting Cisco’s bread and butter – the router business,” he says.
The acquisition also has consequences among the router vendors. Alcatel-Lucent has its own 100Gbps coherent technology which it could add to its router platforms. In contrast, the other main router player, Juniper Networks, must develop the technology internally or partner. Telecom Pragmatics claims Juniper has an internal coherent technology development programme.
40 and 100 Gig markets
Cisco kick-started the 40Gbps market when it added the high-speed interface on its IP core router and Lutkowitz expects Cisco to do the same at 100Gbps. “But let me be clear, we don’t believe 100Gbps serial will dominate the market for a long time, or 40Gbps for that matter.”
In Telecom Pragmatics’ view, multiple channels of 10Gbps will be the predominant approach. First, 10Gbps DWDM systems are widely deployed and their cost continues to come down. And while Alcatel-Lucent and Ciena already have 100Gbps systems, they remain expensive given the infancy of the technology.
But with business with large US operators to be won, systems vendors must have a 100Gbps optical transport offering. Verizon has an ultra-long haul request for proposal (RFP), AT&T has named Ciena as its first domain supplier for its optical and transport equipment but a second partner is still to be announced. And according to ACG Research, Google also has DWDM business.
What next?
Besides Alcatel-Lucent, Ciena, Infinera, Huawei, and now Cisco developing coherent technology, several optical module players are also developing 100Gbps line-side optics. These include Opnext, Oclaro and JDS Uniphase. There are also players such as Finisar that has yet to detail their plans. Lutkowitz believes that if Finisar is holding off developing 100Gbps coherent modules, it may prove a wise move given the continuing strength of the 10Gbps DWDM market.
Opnext acquired subsystem vendor StrataLight Communications in January 2009 and one benefit was gaining StrataLight’s systems expertise and its direct access to operators. Oclaro made its own subsystem move in July, acquiring Mintera. Oclaro has also partnered with Clariphy, which is developing coherent receiver ASICs.
But Telecom Pragmatics questions the long-term prospects of high-end line-side module/ subsystem vendors. “This [technology] is the guts of systems and where the money is made,” says Lutkowitz. “Ultimately all the system vendors will look to develop their own subsystems.”
Lutkowitz highlights other challenges facing module firms. Since they are foremost optical component makers it is challenging for them to make significant investment in subsystems. He also questions when the market 100Gbps will take off. “Some of our [market research] competitors talk about 2014 but they don’t know,” says Lutkowitz.
But is not the trend that over time, 40Gbps and 100Gbps modules will gain increasing share of the line side systems optics, as has happened at 10Gbps?
That is certainly LightCounting’s view that sees Cisco’s move as good news for component and transceiver vendors developing 40 and 100Gbps products. LightCounting argues that with Cisco’s commitment to the technology, other system vendors will have to follow suit, boosting demand for the higher-margin products.
“There will be all types of module vendors but it is possible that going higher in the food chain will not work out,” says Lutkowitz. “There will be more module and component vendors than we have now but all I question is: where are the examples of companies that have gone into subsystems that have done relatively well?”
Opnext is likely to be the next vendor with 100Gbps product, says Lutkowitz, and Oclaro could easily come out with its own offering. “All I’m saying is that there is a possibility that, in the final analysis, systems vendors take the technology and do it themselves.”