|
|
However, telcos have also embraced this technology. A quick look at the Metro Ethernet Forum’s latest round of excellence awards bears this out. Top honors in the North American market went to AT&T and Verizon.
Furthermore, Ethernet is far, far more scalable than many give it credit for being. There is apparently a myth that Carrier Ethernet networks are limited in the number of VLANs available for use. That’s not accurate in any meaningful way. Scalability is a strength of carrier Ethernet, by virtue of its simplicity.
Drawbacks
Some say that there aren’t many drawbacks to Carrier Ethernet, and there is some support for that position. The benefits mentioned above have made believers of large numbers of successful carriers.
There are, however, some serious considerations that should be given to whether a network should be expanded via Carrier Ethernet, or whether more traditional networking means should be retained. A great deal of that depends on where a network provider is, in terms of network scale and initial investment, and what their goals are, in terms of providing services.
|
|
So is Carrier Ethernet wrong for your business? That all depends on the business you’re in. |
|
There were also concerns among many that widespread Ethernet-based networking standards like PBB-TE were not being actively adopted by major carriers due to uncertainty about the future growth and development of the technology.
There are any number of CSPs, while there have been considerable advances made in standards for Carrier Ethernet, carriers we have talked to are still experiencing significant disappointment over the extent to which they are able to effectively leverage multi-vendor solution options, citing a degree of continued resistance from some hardware manufacturers in standards compliance.
So, in many ways, Carrier Ethernet’s biggest fault is its relative newness. Even at a low price point, there’s little incentive to rip-and-replace in favor of Carrier Ethernet. Burton Group analyst Eric Siegel noted in an issue of Processor Magazine that “global enterprises with a large number of locations and complex MPLS-based WANs should probably stick with what they have for now.”
|
|
|
|
|
For providers looking to provide enterprise-level business-class services, Carrier Ethernet is generally a no-brainer. The involvement of companies like Optimum Lightpath (see our Q&A in this issue), Covad, and XO, is a testament to the extent to which Carrier Ethernet makes sense in the business world.
However, there are organizations whose networks may be too far-flung or too low-bandwidth to warrant Carrier Ethernet rollouts.
There are also concerns about
unreliability on Carrier Ethernet
networks, with packet loss and packet
delay plaguing networks, particularly in
the early days of Ethernet WANs. In
addition, the provisioning software for
Carrier Ethernet is still less
sophisticated than those tools
available for SONET networks.
Furthermore, Ethernet is a
connectionless technology, so network
visibility and fault management are still
somewhat more difficult in the Carrier
Ethernet world than in other network
types.
|
|
Furthermore, there are any number of CSPs for whom Carrier Ethernet probably doesn’t make all that much sense, or isn’t on the table. RLECs in West Virginia with a largely residential clientele don’t need it. In addition, as NPRG analysts Ed Gubbins and Craig Clausen note in this issue, many SMBs with limited data needs are just as well served through mid-band technologies like Ethernet over copper, and don’t need brand new deployments of fiber-based Carrier Ethernet.
So is Carrier Ethernet wrong for your business? That all depends on the business you’re in. If low-cost, low-complexity, high-bandwidth deployments between concentrated business centers is your bread and butter, the Carrier Ethernet train is waiting, and you probably have your ticket in your hand as we speak.
If not, advances in the reliability and widespread availability of Carrier Ethernet probably won’t make that much of a difference to you.
|
|
|
.jpg)
