Ethernet Evolution: Market and Technology: Current and Future Trends
PracTel Inc, October 2006
Ethernet-based technologies have dominated the market for support of multiple data services with various rates and types of networks (Enterprise, MAN, Core), and Ethernet has become a data transmission standard. The installed base of Ethernet networks is larger than any other alternative technology deployment in the upper spectrum of data rates, mainly due to simplicity of the Ethernet standards and the cost-efficiency of equipment.
After years of decline requirements for bandwidth, we are witnessing now renew of interest and growing demand for IP applications and streaming video. It is common opinion that video is becoming the major bandwidth driver, replacing voice as dominating traffic type.
Although attractive for variety of reasons, the features of traditional Ethernet and its derivatives are not always in line with current users’ requirements:
- Manageability. Native Ethernet Operation, Administration and Maintenance (OA&M) capabilities are limited.
- Restoration. Even with the latest improvements, the restoration time of native Ethernet networks tends towards seconds instead of required milliseconds;
- Distance limitations.
This situation has led to development various flavors of Ethernet standards, and most importantly, adaptation of SONET/SDH and other transport techniques as carriers for Ethernet frames. The goal to using these carriers for Ethernet transport is to mitigate Ethernet shortcomings by bringing its features closer to those of carrier-grade technologies.
The telecommunications industry is experiencing a quantum leap in transport technologies, preparing to move from SONET/SDH infrastructure to all optical networks]. There were opinions in the industry that SONET/SDH technology may not survive such an evolution. The industry trends show that Ethernet is being deployed at growing rate, but SONET/SDH research deserves more attention. This situation produced a number of questions; such as whether Ethernet development can now influence further SONET/SDH industry progress, or alternative ways to transport Ethernet frames will result in even more erosion on SONET/SDH.
The proliferation of transport networks based on SONET makes it logical to assess possible Ethernet-SONET symbiosis: Ethernet for data transmission and SONET as an Ethernet carrier. This report analyzes technical and marketing aspects of the dependency between these two drivers within the telecommunications industry.
This report analyzes the industry’s position on the relationship between Ethernet and SONET/SDH, feedback nature of their development, as well as the role of the alternative solutions in Ethernet transport. A multitude of factors influence Ethernet –SONET/SDH relationship, many of which are addressed in the report.
Market forecasting is also included.
The primary conclusion is that SONET-based transport methods are developing together with alternative ways to transport Ethernet signals. At the present time, SONET is leading the market for Ethernet transport. The feedback nature of SONET – Ethernet relationship exists as an industry trend, i.e., Ethernet proliferation calls for further SONET R&D and implementation. Ethernet has become a driver to develop and implement SONET features that make this technology adaptive not only to voice but to data transmission as well.
Audience:
This report is written for a wide audience of IT and telecommunications professionals who are involved in Ethernet services, network design and implementation. It also provides useful information for Ethernet and optical equipment vendors.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Traditional Ethernet
1.2 Fast Ethernet
1.3 Gigabit Ethernet
1.4 10 Gb/s Ethernet
1.5 40/100 Gb/s Ethernet
2.0 ETHERNET STANDARDS AND GROWTH OF MARKET
2.1 Standards Development
2.2 Major Standard Bodies Work
2.2.1 Ethernet Alliance
2.2.2 MEF
2.2.3 10 Gb/s Ethernet Alliance
2.2.4 ISO/IEC
2.2.5 ITU-T
2.2.6 IEEE
2.3 Market
2.3.1 Market Drivers
2.3.1.1 Traffic Demand
2.3.1.2 Factors
2.3.2 Market Estimate
3.0 SONET/SDH
3.1 Framing and rates
3.2 SONET Success and “Demise”
3.3 SONET and IP
3.4 Ethernet Over SONET and Optical Transport Network
3.5 Market Estimates: SONET
3.6 Players
4.0 WHY ETHERNET NEEDS A RIDE
5.0 SONET AS ETHERNET CARRIER - Overview
5.1 Next Generation SONET
5.2 10GE over SONET
5.3 Fast Ethernet and GE over SONET
5.3.1 Legacy Methods
5.3.2 Background
6.0 Virtual Concatenation (VCAT) Technologies and Associated Techniques
6.1 Virtual Concatenation
6.2 Support Methods
6.2.1 The GFP Element
6.2.1.1 Limitations
6.2.2 Link Access Procedure – SDH
6.2.3 Link Capacity Adjustment Scheme
6.2.4 Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
7.0 Packet Over SONET
8.0 Classification of the EoS Transport Methods
9.0 ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
9.1 Resilient Packet Ring
9.1.1 MPLS and RPR Work Together
9.1.2 RPR and VCAT Methods
9.1.3 RPR and Ethernet
9.1.4 Hybrid Schemes Features
9.1.5 Comparison
9.1.6 Market
9.2 Ethernet/IP in OTN Environment
9.3 Dark Fiber
9.4 Ethernet in Wave Mutiplexing Environment
9.5 “SONET-like” Ethernet
9.6 Ethernet over Very High-Bit Rate Digital Subscriber Loop (EoV)
9.7 Wireless Ethernet (WE)
9.8 Switched Ethernet
9.8.1 Adding MPLS
9.9 MPLS Approach for MAN
10.0 Methods Comparison: Ethernet Transport
11.0 TOPOLOGICAL EXAMPLES
11.1 Hub Aggregation (HA)
11.2 RPR
11.3 Multi-Service Platforms
11.4 The “Intelligent Wire”
12.0 TRANSPORT METHODS TECHNICAL-ECONOMICAL COMPARISON: EXAMPLES
12.1 Criteria for Comparison
12.2 Quality of Service
12.3 Survivability
12.4 Flexibility
12.5 Scalability
12.6 Security
12.7 Standards
12.8 Cost Considerations
12.8.1 Equipment Component Cost
12.8.2 Management Component Cost
12.8.3 Deployment Cost Component
12.8.4 Bandwidth Utilization Cost Component
12.8.5 Integration Cost
12.9 Summary
13.0 VENDORS’ COMMUNITY POSITION
13.1 Components Vendors
13.2 Market Snapshot 87
13.3 Platform Vendors
13.4 Chips and Platforms
14.0 SERVICE PROVIDERS POSITION
14.1 Services Definitions
14.2 Requirements
15.0 ETHERNET TRANSPORT METHODS: CLASSIFICATION AND COMPARISON
16.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Attachment 1 Ethernet Transport: Chip Vendors
Agere Systems
Agilent Technologies
Ample Communications
Advance Micro Devices
Applied Micro Circuits Corp.
Atheros Communications
Broadcom
Cypress Semiconductor
EzChip
Galazar
Ikanos
Intel
Infineon
Intersil
Multilink
Motorola
Metalink, LTD
Nuvation
PMC-Sierra
Radlan
Radiata
SonTera Communications
Sandburst
Texas Instruments
Transwitch
Vitesse Semiconductor
West Bay Semiconductor
Zarlink Semiconductor
Attachment 2 Ethernet Transport: Platforms Vendors
3 Com
Alcatel
Appian Communications
Atoga
Avaya
Cisco
Ciena
Chiaro Networks
Corrigent Systems
Enterasys Networks
Extreme Networks
FiberHome Networks
Internet Photonics (Ciena)
Jupiter
Lucent
Luminous Networks
Mahi Networks
MRV Communications
NEC
Native Networks (Alcatel)
Nortel
Proxim Wireless Networks
Riverstone Networks
Sorrento Networks (Zhone)
Sycamore
Tejas Networks
Tellabs
Telways
WaveSmith Networks (Ciena)
Zhone
References
Abbreviations
List of Figures:
Figure 1: Ethernet Channel: Simplified Structure
Figure 2: Ethernet Signal Frame: Basic Structure
Figure 3: Gigabit Ethernet Frame Extensions
Figure 4: Estimate – Ethernet Equipment Revenue ($B)
Figure 5: Estimate-Carrier Ethernet Equipment Revenue ($B)
Figure 6: Estimate-Ethernet Service Market ($B)
Figure 7: Estimate-Number of Ethernet Ports Sold (Million)
Figure 8: Ethernet Market Geography
Figure 9: SONET Frame
Figure 10: Ethernet-over-SONET Network Example
Figure 11: Estimate of U.S. SONET Market ($B)
Figure 12: Estimate: U.S. NGS Market
Figure 13: Estimate CWDM Market ($M)
Figure 14: Estimate: DWDM Market ($M)
Figure 15: SONET ADM-OADM Vendors Market Share (2006)
Figure 16: Metro DWDM -Market Players
Figure 17: NGS/NGSDH Market Players
Figure 18: 10GE Schemes
Figure 19: Layer Structure: Ethernet over LAPS in STM-N
Figure 20: PPP and SONET
Figure 21: SONET-based Methods Classifications
Figure 22: RPR-SONET-Ethernet: Layered Structure
Figure 23: RPR Interworking
Figure 24: Network Evolution
Figure 25: HA Architecture
Figure 26: RPR Architecture Examples
Figure 27: Equipment Components Cost
Figure 28: Management Component Cost Comparison
Figure 29: Deployment Component Cost Comparison
Figure 30: Bandwidth Utilization Component Cost Comparison
Figure 31: Integration Component Cost comparison
Figure 32: Components for Ethernet Transport
Figure 33: Platforms: Ethernet Transport Technologies
List of Tables:
Table 1: SONET/SDH Rates
Table 2: Contiguous Container – Bandwidth Utilization
Table 3:Bandwidth Efficiency-Virtual Concatenation
Table 4: Ethernet Transport Technologies Comparison
Ethernet Transport: Chip Vendors
- Agere Systems
- Agilent Technologies
- Ample Communications
- Advance Micro Devices
- Applied Micro Circuits Corp.
- Atheros Communications
- Broadcom
- Cypress Semiconductor
- EzChip
- Galazar
- Ikanos
- Intel
- Infineon
- Intersil
- Multilink
- Motorola
- Metalink, LTD
- Nuvation
- PMC-Sierra
- Radlan
- Radiata
- SonTera Communications
- Sandburst
- Texas Instruments
- Transwitch
- Vitesse Semiconductor
- West Bay Semiconductor
- Zarlink Semiconductor
Ethernet Transport: Platforms Vendors
- 3 Com
- Alcatel
- Appian Communications
- Atoga
- Avaya
- Cisco
- Ciena
- Chiaro Networks
- Corrigent Systems
- Enterasys Networks
- Extreme Networks
- FiberHome Networks
- Internet Photonics (Ciena)
- Jupiter
- Lucent
- Luminous Networks
- Mahi Networks
- MRV Communications
- NEC
- Native Networks (Alcatel)
- Nortel
- Proxim Wireless Networks
- Riverstone Networks
- Sorrento Networks (Zhone)
- Sycamore
- Tejas Networks
- Tellabs
- Telways
- WaveSmith Networks (Ciena)
- Zhone
Customers who bought this item also bought
All rights reserved. © Copyright 2013 Research and Markets WWW6
Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy Publishers Employment Opportunities Site Map Link to us Webmaster Affiliate Network
