October 2000

The Soul Of A New Network

BY RICH TEHRANI

One example of this point of view, applied to technology, is a book entitled The Soul Of A New Machine. In it, the author, Tracy Kidder, describes how Data General Corporation not only created a new 32-bit minicomputer, but also met a seemingly impossible deadline. The computer, the MV-8000 Eagle, has long since become outdated, but the work practices engendered by the Eagle project live on. You could even say the Eagle project anticipated the hacker culture. Rarified and rigorous, the hacker culture is one in which intense single-mindedness and incredibly long hours are now taken for granted.

And just what is the soul of the new machine? The book admits any number of interpretations. It could be the dedication of bleary-eyed hardware and software engineers. Or it could be a sense of urgency more typical of war than of everyday commerce. And what is the new machine? Not just the MV-8000, surely. Rather, it could be a new kind of corporation, one that instills a sense of urgency and demands a new work ethic.

And now we come to the next-generation network, that is, the new public network, which will accommodate both voice and data, and which will first isolate and then obviate traditional, circuit-switched facilities, making way for a thoroughly packet-based infrastructure. At least, that is the superficial view. But what, I ask, is the soul of the new network?

The new network has a soul inasmuch as it is an expression of humanity -- not of individual genius, mind you, but of the organized efforts of many gifted people. Organization is a crucial point, the defining point, because designing and building the new public network is beyond any one corporation. The new network signals a new industry, a new economy. So demanding is the new network, in terms of reliability, capacity, and flexibility, that corporations will work together as never before, weaving an ever finer fabric of core competencies and outsourcing schemes, acquisitions and spin-offs, stalwarts and startups.

The soul of the new network is mutability, in the components that constitute the emerging infrastructure; in the corporations that provide and assemble and add value to the components; and, ultimately, in the economy driven by the new network. And this mutability will be taken to new extremes, in answer to unprecedented time-to-market pressures.

But enough generalities. Let's examine the emerging public network, some of its various components, as well as its overall shape. We will see that regardless of the variety of network elements, the new network represents a remarkably consistent vision.

A ROUGH CHRONOLOGY
The early PC- or server-based systems, that is, the early IP gateways, were scarcely carrier class, but they aroused interest anyway. Their potential could hardly be ignored, not following deregulation in the telecommunications space. And while these gateways were lacking in terms of density and availability and reliability, they did have the virtue of audacity. Characteristic deployments involved bypassing the public switched telephone network (PSTN), skirting long-distance charges and exploiting arbitrage possibilities.

Aware of the opportunities in IP telephony, and being loathe to cede them to impudent upstarts, established vendors began retrofitting existing data networking platforms so that they could carry voice traffic. Soon, the IP telephony market was joined by router-based gateways as well as equipment with their origins in remote access servers (RAS-based gateways). Such equipment was introduced by Cisco, 3Com, Bay Networks (soon to be acquired by Nortel), and Ascend (soon to be acquired by Lucent).

In addition, established switch vendors began outlining schemes whereby circuit-switched solutions could migrate to packet telephony. The Nortel Succession platform is a case in point, as is the Lucent 7R/E (the "R" stands for revolution, the "E," for evolution). Whether the switch vendors were reacting to IP telephony as a threat, or whether they were leading the parade, depends on who you ask.

And, finally, we come to a couple of hardware approaches that are much in the news of late. First, we have the next-generation switch. Typically, this platform is custom-built, boasting of carrier-class attributes, including reliability and (more recently) high port density. Vendors supplying next-generation switches include Converent Networks, Salix (acquired by Tellabs), Sonus, TransMedia (acquired by Cisco), and Unisphere Solutions (formerly Castle Networks, acquired by Siemens).

Second, we have the open development option, which relies on commercial "off the shelf" components. This option, thanks to continued improvements in CompactPCI, promises to introduce PC economies and development speeds to the telecommunications space. Board-level gateways compatible with the CompactPCI universe include offerings from AudioCodes, Brooktrout, Dialogic, Natural MicroSystems, and Radisys.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of each of these hardware approaches? It can be hard to say, especially since innovation proceeds apace, often blurring distinctions between categories. (Mutability, again.) Also, most approaches agree on an overall vision for the next-generation public network.

At any rate, we'll consider the input provided us by vendors representing each of the approaches we've just described. Specifically, we received input from Lucent's Internetworking Division (discussing RAS-based platforms), from Unisphere Solutions (discussing the next-generation switch), and Dialogic and Natural MicroSystems (discussing open development). Finally, we'll review what Cisco and 3Com have said about the next-generation network as a flexible service creation and delivery infrastructure. Their comments are as illuminating as any on this subject, and conform to widely held, prevailing views about the future of the next-generation network.

WHERE THERE'S A WILL, THERE'S A WAY
Lucent may take service providers over various paths to the next-generation network, an observation confirmed by our communication with Sherman Scholten, technical marketing manager, Edge Access Networks -- InterNetworking Systems, Lucent Technologies.

Communications Solutions: What "next-gen" migration approaches might Lucent accommodate?
Lucent: Depending on the carrier's voice and data convergence strategy, Lucent is either equipping the customer's migration to packet-based switching from legacy, circuit-switched equipment with custom-built hardware (such as the 7R/E) that leverage past investment (such as the 5ESS), or we are facilitating the build out of a voice-enabled data network using existing data/RAS switching equipment (such as the MAX TNT and APX 8000) -- often with a simple software upgrade (such as MultiVoice).

CS: And what kinds of service providers could you work with?
Lucent: We are delivering a variety of products to market that address the specific needs of every type of carrier, including incumbent local and long-distance telecommunications carriers, competitive local exchange carriers, Internet telephony service providers, and emerging application service providers targeting niche markets like Internet call waiting, unified messaging and click-to-call Web applets.

All carriers, regardless of where they are in starting down the convergence highway, demand open, programmable, multi-purpose, multi-service networking designed for high-performance and carrier-class reliability, not to mention high port density and low power consumption. The universal port (voice, fax, remote access) capabilities of the MAX TNT and APX 8000 access concentrators are a proven, successful example of a convergence-minded capability.

CS: As for remote access concentrators... How are they relevant? How might they be advantageous?
Lucent: The access market is undergoing a time of remarkable transition combined with dramatic growth. Driven by the Internet's unprecedented rise, the evolution of this element of the public network is viewed by analysts as the next significant step in the information technology revolution. As the access market develops to offer a converged network infrastructure optimized for transporting multiple traffic types, and to support exciting next-generation applications such as unified messaging, service providers are at the forefront. Without question, service providers of all types, shapes, and sizes will undergo fundamental changes, as they will also be required to evolve in an intensely competitive market.

Access platforms allow service providers to position themselves in the market for integrated voice and data services. Their ability to function as both a remote access concentrator and VoIP gateway enables the service provider to decide when, where, and how to engage each service, all the time investing in a single platform with common hardware and software components, thus significantly reducing infrastructure and operating costs.

CS: Going forward, how will access platforms contribute to the evolution of the new network?
Lucent: The real challenge for a service provider is to build converged networks that are as reliable, robust, and scalable as today's voice networks. Our approach in addressing the next-generation public network is to keep intact the feature richness of today's PSTN and couple the power of IP networking and more specifically the Internet with products like the Lucent Softswitch using the MAX TNT and APX 8000 as media gateways.

Next-generation public networks are being built today in preparation for the implementation of highly advanced, functional, and integrated applications. Advances in transport technologies, switching technologies and application integration have made it possible to deliver enhanced voice and data services in volume and with certainty.

CONVERGENCE FROM SCRATCH
To help us understand the customized approach, that is, the advantages of the next-generation switch, we talked to representatives of Unisphere Solutions: Susan Blanchard, senior product line manager, and Kate Zebrose, senior engineer.

CS: Why a custom implementation?
Unisphere: We have found that a custom implementation using standard hardware components allows for the most cost-effective solution for our carrier customers that are looking for density, reliability, and resource management. When the carrier networks actually rolls out services, the volumes are quite large -- more than sufficient to justify the development cost of a true carrier-class implementation.

CS: What about alternative approaches? CompactPCI? Remote access solutions?
Unisphere: CompactPCI solutions simply cannot meet the density and scalabilty requirements for full-scale carrier deployment. A good example of this is on the AudioCodes Web site. The highest density compact PCI solution is the TP-400. This supports only 192 ports per module, while their PMC module the TPM-800 supports 240 ports.

Remote access solutions that are field proven also do not have the density requirements. Modem function is a significantly greater DSP requirement than VoIP, which means the RAS solution has a significantly lower density, particularly compared to uncompressed and ADPCM compressed voice. These solutions also lack the resource management, signaling, and redundancy support for deployment in the voice network. The current solution is to provide these elements with adjunct equipment, which also needs to be redundant. While adequate for initial roll out, this increases the required footprint.

CS: But when you say custom, do people hear proprietary?
Unisphere: We have found that a proprietary design has given us greater flexibility in addressing this market. We learned from the RAS experience and have insured adequate air flow through the chassis for initial deployment and extensive expansion. Equipment vendors will need proprietary solutions in order to meet the cost and footprint requirements that will make this network architecture cost-effective for carriers.

ADDING VALUE, AND QUICKLY
In our communications with providers of commercially available components, several themes were pronounced. First, these providers emphasized the distinction between platforms that accomplish routing or switching, and platforms that provide for enhanced services. (At present, enhanced services platforms are where commercial components are most commonly deployed.) Second, the importance of outsourcing as a way to achieve faster time to market. (That is, relying on commerical components instead of developing all components in-house.) Third, the potential for yet broader application of the open development approach as CompactPCI improves in terms of density and availability. For these insights, and the commentary which follows, we thank Jack Chase, Natural MicroSystems, and Chandresh Ruparel, product line manager for Internet Telephony, Dialogic.

CS: Could you give us an idea where open development fits into the creation of the next-generation network?
Natural MicroSystems: A little background might be helpful. First, new carriers, in the wake of deregulation, deployed PC-based systems. And, eventually, router-based systems became available. These have expanded the market considerably, and have introduced lower cost/port alternatives. In addition, vendors such as Cisco have increased the time-to-market pressures to which traditional telco equipment providers must respond. And so, the traditional providers have put increased emphasis on outsourcing. I should note that outsourcing has always been a theme; it's just more pronounced now. Also, we've seen increasing emphasis on enhancing existing platforms, which creates opportunities for those who may provide design and customization services.

But the key is time to market. This is what accounts for the popularity of open systems with network applications. (I need hardly add that open systems are already popular in the PC/computer telephony space.) It is a relatively new phenomenon, that is, the ability of open systems to fulfill network application requirements. This ability directly attributable to advances with CompactPCI. Its "off the shelf" capabilities simply weren't an option before.

CS: What about other hardware alternatives
Natural MicroSystems: RAS-based systems... these are easily available, but generally harder to work with when assembling larger systems. And they are not necessarily an attractive approach for developers looking to add value. Of course, the RAS vendors themselves may enhance the value of their own platforms.

More recently, large systems, such as those from Sonus, are entering trials. These systems, which present a more or less "from scratch" approach, offer high port density, typically between 50,000 to 100,000 ports, typically within a large chassis, say, 9U.

Such density or scale is not yet available with CompactPCI. (At present, boards from Natural MicroSystems provide for up to 240 ports/board.) It remains to be said, however, that open systems providers will keep "raising the bar," that is, they will keep scaling up CompactPCI. In any case, the current developmental emphasis with CompactPCI in on value-added applications, that is, on deploying enhanced services, having them run on the same platform. Most developers are adding value at the softswitch, and not so much at the DSP level.

CS: We've heard about the importance of flexibility. Could you elaborate?
Dialogic: Currently, we see considerable uncertainty with respect to design alternatives, that is, with how multiple types of functionality -- including gateway and concentration functionality -- may be encapsulated within fewer boxes. Given this uncertainty, the flexibility promised by server-based solutions is very attractive, particularly since server-based solutions, based on CT components, continue to acquire carrier-class attributes. Moreover, these carrier-class attributes emerge from open technologies as opposed to proprietary technologies. For example, CompactPCI solutions are improving both in terms of density and sophistication, offering high availability and remote diagnostics and maintenance.

CS: So, in addition to time to market, the need to manage uncertainty is an important factor.
Dialogic: Yes, in addition to uncertainties with respect to infrastructure, there are uncertainties with respect to standards. Which will prevail? MGCP? SIP? Where should developers and service providers invest their resources? PC-based solutions are popular here, since they offer a lot of flexibility. And the trend will become only more pronounced as the viability of standards-based approaches becomes clearer. In other words, once this viability is demonstrated, there will be less incentive to develop proprietary solutions. In addition, the focus of large players, such as Intel, on providing carrier-grade solutions to the service provider market make commercial components very attractive for deployment in the public network.

CS: And what of the need for services differentiation?
Dialogic: Again, this comes back to flexibility. You need flexibility if you are to add services differentiation based on features. If you lack flexibility in creating new services, you will have a difficult time competing. But this is where the strength of a broad development community can be helpful. And, indeed, the current developmental emphasis is on the enhanced services side. (Enhanced services, I should point out, cover such things as softswitch and call agent functionality, and billing and signaling.) Also, currently, deployments are mostly on the access side, and not so much in the core of the network.

WHAT'S NEW? WHAT'S DIFFERENT?
So far, we've reviewed a variety of design approaches to the next-generation network. But what does it all mean? Let's return to my opening trope, that is, my reference to The Soul Of A New Machine. While this book draws an admirable picture of ingenuity and dedication, we may feel that Data General's work was nonetheless limited in scope. We are, after all, talking about a machine, a box, something which suggests confinement.

Today, having experienced the Internet, we're more accustomed to expansive and even ethereal visions. So, we may consider The Soul Of A New Network. Within this network, functionality may be distributed so finely that few would care to know where any particular function actually resided. For most, would it matter if we could isolate a particular box or set of boxes?

Granted, alternative approaches to design are nothing new. And neither are outsourcing options. And neither are calls for standardization. But, with packet-based networks, design challenges are being broken into ever smaller pieces. Ever more discrete functions are being exposed to dedicated engineering talent. The point is, a sufficiently large difference in degree may constitute a difference in kind.

An analogy to the physical sciences may be instructive. It is a fact that chemical reactions proceed more quickly when the surface areas of the reactants are maximized. And so it is that while a lump of coal may glow, a cloud of coal dust is actually explosive. We could liken the glowing lump to the traditional public network, and the explosive cloud to the packet-based next-generation network.

In the next-generation network, the distribution of functionality is sometimes referred to as decomposition. For example, it is fairly common to hear of the decomposed switch, which is basically a Class 5 switch broken down into its functional components, an operation that relaxes co-location requirements while implementing packet-based communications, as opposed to circuit-switched communications. Typical elements within a decomposed infrastructure would include a media gateway (for transport), a signaling gateway (for SS7 functionality), a softswitch (for gatekeeper or call agent functionality), and the media server (or application server or feature server).

THE GRAND DESIGN
The proliferation of design options and network elements needn't cause confusion. There is actually a method to the apparent madness of the decomposed network. And that method typically involves separating network functions into planes (in Cisco's words) or tiers (in 3Com's words).

According to Cisco, the traditional switch architecture may be broken into these layers: the connection plane, the call control plane, and the service plane. Between these planes, interactions may be managed via open protocols.

Cisco calls the approach Open Packet Telephony (OPT). According to a Cisco whitepaper, OPT "opens up the telephony infrastructure to give service providers unprecented control over their networks. Freed from the constraints of proprietary solutions and overlaid single-technology networks, service providers can move into new markets, services, and revenues."

The same basic vision is described in slightly different terms by 3Com, as we learned in our communication with Houman Modarres, 3Com's director, product management, IP Telephony, Carrier Networks Business. Modarres is responsible for the evolution of media gateway, softswitch, and back-office components of 3Com's CommWorks IP telephony framework for service providers.

CS: Please describe the challenges facing service providers.
3Com: In the last several years, a multitude of leading service providers have accelerated their efforts to build next-generation networks that bridge the gap between legacy circuit-switched infrastructure and more efficient and cost-effective packet-based IP networks. Their goal is threefold: to meet the exploding demand for integrated voice and high-speed data access, provide a common "look-and-feel" to their array of bundled applications, and offer compelling new services that enhance customer loyalty.

However, in doing so they face significant challenges, including the need to interconnect a multiplicity of networks, technologies, and systems. Most are controlled by divergent protocols and incompatible network management and operating systems. And the list of applications service providers require to offer differentiated services grows longer every day.

CS: And how might the service provider bring all these elements together into a converged data and voice network?
3Com: The key is to build an infrastructure that is both open and standards based, one that combines standard hardware and software solutions designed to interwork with legacy PSTN equipment and services as well as next-generation IP networks. Such a system offers service providers the ability to mix and match best-of-breed components to create a custom configuration for individual applications, plus the ability to add new elements and upgrade their networks on demand.

Building this distributed network requires three basic components: 1) media gateways, which provide universal connectivity; 2) softswitches, which provide open call control and signaling intelligence; and 3) back-end servers, which enable enhanced services and applications. This three-tier approach offers a flexible and scalable way to meet the needs of today's service providers and carriers.

CS: Could you elaborate on each of these components?
3Com: Media gateways integrate multiple types of traffic and accommodate disparate access networks. They provide open interfaces to all back-end servers, making them available to all network users, independent of access medium and speed.

Softswitches offer a truly open system design lacking reliance on any one operating system or hardware platform. As a result, they can support generic interfaces that enable rapid customization and faster introduction of new services. In addition, they easily accommodate technological advances, such as enhanced call control protocols and innovative mechanisms to integrate with existing IN-based service platforms to deliver higher call handling capacities.

Back-end servers, which are based on the service providers' standard computing platforms of choice provide all the required network-centric services, such as provisioning and directory mapping; application-centric services, such as unified messaging, IP fax, and IP Centrex; as well as user-centric servers that provide a baseline for personalized services, subscriber profiling, managed push, and self-provisioning.

CS: Is it all that easy? It sounds almost plug-and-play.
3Com: Actually, work remains to be done before distributed networks are truly plug-and-play. A positive sign is the emergence of industry-wide, accepted standards such as H.323, SIP, and H.248 Megaco. These imply that the monolithic PSTN switching platforms with complex and often proprietary interconnections will soon be a thing of the past. In the face of this, a strong case can be made for a three-tier infrastructure based on open interfaces, built on standard computing platforms with multiple vendors providing services and equipment for each tier. Such a solution provides a scalable and cost-effective means for merging legacy and next-generation networks, while providing a framework that meets the requirements of tomorrow's emerging services and applications.

[ Return To The October 2000 Table Of Contents ]

You're probably not surprised to hear that the sheer volume of different implementation strategies for next-gen networks has led to some confusion in the market. More and more frequently, readers and attendees want me to help them make difficult implementation decisions. Whether you are an enterprise or service provider decision maker, the choices involved in choosing next-generation network technology remain as challenging as ever. Whenever I can, I do my best to guide you to the best decision for your particular implementation.

In the end, the decision to upgrade your network is partly a matter of which solution to choose but mostly, when to choose it. I believe that the time to implement is now. The decision, however, is not easy, and there will continue to be innovation in the market after you make a purchasing decision. But if you do wait too long, you will face a difficult decision coupled with the disadvantage of being last to implement among your peers.

PROFIT PREREQUISITE
As always, we at TMC remain committed to helping you make these important decisions in your business. The only way that we know to help you make important purchasing decisions is through objective education. The conference programs at TMC events are like mini-university degrees in how to extract value from communications technology. As always, we spend a tremendous amount of time developing a truly objective and in-depth conference program for Communications Solutions EXPO�. The next event -- to be held December 5-7 at the Sands Exposition Center in Las Vegas -- is no exception. The program, speaks for itself.

We feel that we have encompassed every major trend the market has to offer. So that you can get an idea of all the potential courses available to you, here are just a few of the most relevant of the nine separate power-packed tracks that are available to you.

• Corporate Solutions
• Customer Contact And CRM Solutions
• Next-Gen Networks And Services
• Internet Telephony
• Enabling Technologies And Development
• Wireless Solutions
• E-Sales/E-service

Although there are tracks targeting all facets of the market, from the enterprise to the developer, for brevity's sake I'll list only a few of the service provider-oriented tracks.

• Creative Decomposition: Evolution Of The Next-Gen Network
• Till The Bandwidth Comes... Relieving The PSTN Of Internet Traffic
• Beyond Cheaper Minutes �- The Value-Added Services Imperative
• The Rise of The Telephony ASP
• A Balm for the Network, A Switch So Soft
• Don't Knock The NOC: Management Solutions For Service Providers
• Like Cream Rising To The Top: The Emergence Of A Distinct Services Layer
• It's All About Priorities: QoS And Policy-Based Networking
• H.323 And SIP: A Distinction Without A Difference?
• Value-Added Countdown: The Top 10 Enhanced Services

And I can't forget to mention that for the first time, the Communications Solutions EXPO� Fall show hotel is the lovely Venetian, the only hotel in Las Vegas connected to the Sands Convention Center. Couple this with the fact that we were able to secure wonderfully reasonable rates for the Venetian and our show airlines, and you can see why this is a must-attend event. I look forward to seeing you at the show! Registration is a simple mouse-click away. 

[ Return To The October 2000 Table Of Contents ]