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
AT&T domain suppliers
|
Date |
Domain |
Partners |
|
Sept 2009 |
Wireline Access |
Ericsson |
|
Feb 2010 |
Radio Access Network |
Alcatel-Lucent, Ericsson |
|
April 2010 |
Optical and transport equipment |
Ciena |
|
July 2010 |
IP/MPLS/Ethernet/Evolved Packet Core |
Alcatel-Lucent, Juniper, Cisco |
The table shows the selected players in AT&T's domain supplier programme announced to date.
AT&T has stated that there will likely be eight domain supplier categories overall so four more have still to be detailed.
Looking at the list, several thoughts arise:
- AT&T has already announced wireless and wireline infrastructure providers whose equipment spans the access network all the way to ultra long-haul. The networking technologies also address the photonic layer to IP or layer 3.
- Alcatel-Lucent and Ericsson already play in two domains while no Asian vendor has yet to be selected.
- One or two more players may be added to the wireline access and optical and transport infrastructure domains but this part of the network is pretty much done.
So what domains are left? Peter Jarich, service director at market research firm Current Analysis, suggests the following:
- Datacentre
- OSS/BSS
- IP Service Layer (IP Multimedia Subsystem, subscriber data management, service delivery platform)
- Voice Core (circuit, softswitch)
- Content Delivery (IP TV, etc.)
AT&T was asked to comment but the operator said that it has not detailed any domains beyond those that have been announced.
|
Date |
Domain |
Partners |
|
Sept 2009 |
Wireline Access |
Ericsson |
|
Feb 2010 |
Radio Access Network |
Alcatel-Lucent, Ericsson |
|
April 2010 |
Optical and transport equipment |
Ciena |
|
July 2010 |
IP/MPLS/Ethernet/Evolved Packet Core |
Alcatel-Lucent, Juniper, Cisco |
Wireless backhaul: The many routes to packet
ECI Telecom has detailed its wireless backhaul offering that spans the cell tower to the metro network. The 1Net wireless backhaul architecture supports traditional Sonet/SDH to full packet transport, with hybrid options in between, across various physical media.
“We can support any migration scheme an operator may have over any type of technology and physical medium, be it copper, fibre or microwave,” says Gil Epshtein, senior product marketing manager, network solutions division at ECI Telecom.
Why is this important?
Operators are experiencing unprecedented growth in wireless data due to the rise of smart phones and notebooks with 3G dongles for mobile broadband.
Mobile data surpassed voice traffic for the first time in December 2009, according to Ericsson, with the crossover occurring at approximately 140,000 terabytes per month in both voice and data traffic. According to Infonetics Research, mobile broadband subscribers surpassed digital subscriber line (DSL) subscribers in 2009, and will grow to 1.5 billion worldwide in 2014. By then, there will be 3.6 exabytes (3.6 billion gigabytes) per month of mobile data traffic, with two thirds being wireless video, forecasts Cisco Systems.
“The challenge is that almost all the growth is packet internet traffic, and that is not well suited to sit on the classic TDM backhaul network originally designed for voice,” says Michael Howard, principal analyst, carrier and data center networks at Infonetics Research. TDM refers to time division multiplexing based on Sonet/SDH where for wireless backhaul T1/E1lines are used.
“There is a gap between the technology hype and real life”
Gil Epshtein, ECI Telecom
The fast growth also implies an issue of scale, with the larger mobile operators having many cell sites to backhaul. E1/TI lines are also expensive even if prices are coming down, says Howard: “It is much cheaper to use Ethernet as a transport – the cost per bit is enormously better.”
This is why operators are keen to upgrade their wireless backhaul networks from Sonet/SDH to packet-based Ethernet transport. “But there is a gap between the technology hype and real life,” says Epshtein. Operators have already invested heavily in existing backhaul infrastructure and upgrading to packet will be costly. The operators also know that projected revenues from data services will not keep pace with traffic growth.
“Operators are faced with how to build out their backhaul infrastructures to meet service demands at cost points that provide an adequate return on investment,” says Glen Hunt, principal analyst, carrier transport and routing at Current Analysis. Such costs are multi-faceted, he says, on the capital side and the operational side. “Carriers do not want to buy an inexpensive device that adds complexity to network operations which then offsets any capital savings.”
“It is much cheaper to use Ethernet as a transport –the cost per bit is enormously better.”
Michael Howard, Infonetics Research
To this aim, ECI offers operators a choice of migration schemes to packet-based backhaul. Its solution supports T1/E1lines and Ethernet frame encapsulation over TDM, Ethernet overlay networks, and packet-only networks (see chart above).
With Ethernet overlay, an Ethernet network runs alongside the TDM network. The two can co-exist within a common network element, what ECI calls embedded Ethernet overlay, or separately using distinct TDM and packet switch platforms. And when an operator adopts all-packet, legacy TDM traffic can be carried over packets using circuit emulation pseudo-wire technology.
“ECI’s offering is significant since it includes all the components and systems necessary to handle nearly any type of backhaul requirement,” says Hunt. The same is true for most of the larger system vendors, he says. However, many vendors integrate third party devices to complete their solutions – ECI itself has done this with microwave. But with 1NET for wireless backhaul, ECI will now offer its own microwave backhaul systems.
According to Infonetics, between 55% and 60% of all backhaul links are microwave outside of North America. And 80% of all microwave sales are for mobile backhaul. Moreover, Infonetics estimates that 70 to 80% of operator spending on mobile backhaul through 2012 will be on microwave. “Those are the figures that explain why ECI has decided to go it alone,” says Howard. Until now ECI has used products from its microwave specialist partner, Ceragon Networks.
“ECI has all the essential features that the other big players have like Ericsson, Alcatel-Lucent, Nokia Siemens Networks and Huawei,” says Howard. What is different is that ECI does not supply radio access network (RAN) equipment such as basestations. “It is ok, though, because almost all of the [operator] backhaul tenders separate between RAN and backhaul,” says Howard.
ECI argues that by adopting a technology-agnostic approach, it can address operators’ requirements without forcing them down a particular path. “Operators are looking for guidance as to which path is best from this transition,” says Epshtein. There is no one-model fits all. “We have so many exceptions you really need to look on a case-by-case basis.”
In developed markets, for example, the building of packet overlay is generally happening faster. Some operators with fixed line networks have already moved to packet and that, in theory, simplifies upgrading the backhaul to packet. But organisational issues across an operator’s business units can complicate and delay matters, he says.
And Epshtein cites one European operator that will use its existing network to accommodate growth in data services over the coming years: “It is putting aside the technology hype and looking at the bottom line."
In emerging markets, moving to packet is happening more slowly as mobile users’ income is limited. But on closer inspection this too varies. In Africa, certain operators are moving straight to all-IP, says Ephstein, whereas others are taking a gradual approach.
What’s been done?
ECI has launched new products as well as upgraded existing ones as part of its 1NET wireless backhaul offering.
The company has announced its BG-Wave microwave systems. There are two offerings: an all-packet microwave system and a hybrid one that supports both TDM and Ethernet traffic. ECI says that having its own microwave products will allow it to gain a foothold with operators it has not had design wins before.
“ECI will need to prove the value of its microwave products with actual field deployments”
Glen Hunt, Current Analysis
ECI has announced two additional 9000 carrier Ethernet switch routers (CESR) families: the 9300 and 9600. These have switching capacities and a product size more suited to backhaul. The switches support Layer 3 IP-MPLS and Layer 2 MPLS-TP, as well as the SyncE and IEEE 1588 Version 2 synchronisation protocols.
ECI has also upgraded its XDM multi-service provisioning platform (MSPP) to enable an embedded overlay with Ethernet and TDM traffic supported within the platform.
“When an operator is choosing to add packet backhaul to existing TDM backhaul, typically it is a separate network – they keep voice on TDM and add a second network for packet,” says Howard. This hybrid approach involves adding another set of equipment. “ECI has added functions to existing equipment, which operators may already have, that allows two networks to run over a single set of products.”
Also included in the solution are ECI’s BroadGate and its Hi-FOCuS multi-service access node (MSAN). This is not for operators to deploy the platform for wireless backhaul but rather those operators that have the MSAN can now use it for backhauling traffic, says Ephstein. This is useful in dense urban areas and for operators offering wholesale services to other operators.
All the network elements are controlled using ECI’s LightSoft management system.
“ECI’s solution has the advantage that all the systems use the same operating system and support the same features,” says Hunt. He cites the example of MPLS-TP which is implemented on ECI’s carrier Ethernet and optical platforms.
“ECI has a full range of platforms that all work together to meet the needs of mobile as well as fixed operator,” says Hunt. “ECI will need to prove the value of its microwave products with actual field deployments.”
Operator interest
ECI has secured general telecom wins with large incumbent operators in Western Europe and has been winning business in Eastern Europe, Russia, India and parts of Asia.
ECI’s sweet spot has been its relationship with Tier 2 and Tier 3 operators, says Hunt, and since the company offers broadband access, optical transport, and carrier Ethernet, it can use these successes to help expand into areas such as wireless backhaul.
But wireless backhaul is already a key part of the company’s business, accounting for over 30% of revenues, says Ephstein. Late last year ECI estimated that it was carrying between 30% and 40% of the mobile backbone traffic in India, a rapidly growing market.
As for 1NET wireless backhaul, ECI has announced one win so far - Israeli mobile operator Cellcom which has selected the 9000 CESR family. “Cellcom shows that ECI can continue to expand its presence in the network - in this case leveraging business Ethernet services to add backhaul,” says Hunt.
In addition one European operator, as yet unnamed, has selected ECI’s embedded overlay. “Several other operators are in various stages of selecting the right option for them,” says Ephstein.
- For some ECI wireless backhaul papers and case studies, click here