Id Cwhitepaper 2005


Published on

Id Cwhitepaper 2005

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Id Cwhitepaper 2005

  1. 1. WHITE P Making the Case for Flexible Next-Generation Transport Networks Sponsored by: CienaF.508.935.4015 Sterling Perrin May 2005P.508.872.8200 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY New business initiatives and competitive pressures to become more efficient and productive are forcing enterprises to seek new types of network services. In particular, enterprises are showing significant interest in advanced data services, andGlobal Headquarters: 5 Speen Street Framingham, MA 01701 USA are adopting such offerings as metro Ethernet services, IP VPNs, Layer 2 VPNs, and VoIP technology as a replacement for traditional PBXs. At the same time, businesses continue to rely heavily on the more traditional voice and data services that are well understood and widely deployed throughout their networks. Changes in customer demands are causing carriers to dramatically alter the way they architect their networks. In addition, carrier requirements to cut their costs — both operational and capital expenses — are causing the further reevaluation of networks. The best network solutions for carriers are ones that meet their customers needs for next-generation services and also address their own requirements for lower capital and operational costs. Enabling new services, while maintaining legacy services, is critical for NSP success moving forward. As voice and legacy data service revenue declines, NSPs need new services to fill the revenue void. More important, enterprise customers are demanding new services from their NSPs. If the incumbent provider doesnt have what a customer needs, they will spend their money with a new NSP that does offer it. The requirement for NSPs to support legacy services is clear from surveys of enterprise customer needs. Enterprises are not migrating to next-generation data services overnight. IDC expects that legacy data services, such as frame relay and ATM, will continue for many years to come. Enterprise requirements for new services to interwork with legacy services underscore this reality. In the environment just described, NSPs face many risks in making their NGN network decisions — and in not making them. For instance, they face the risk of making a wrong technology decision. Technology investments are expensive, and carrier capital budgets are limited. If they place a strong bet on a data service that doesnt take off, they face the risk not only of wasting the capital and operational dollars invested in that service, but also of missing the "next big thing" completely because they drained their resources on the wrong choice. NSPs also face the risk of making the right technology decision at the wrong time. It does NSPs no good to be right about an enterprise technology migration but be two years too late to market, or two years too early.
  2. 2. The key for NSPs is to mitigate their network migration risks as much as possible. Forthe largest operators, a hybrid network architecture approach that preserves legacyservices and legacy infrastructure investments while enabling the timely introductionand scaling of new services for enterprise customers presents the best networkmigration scenario.In this vein, NSPs should explore flexible, hybrid network options that converge wheresensible, preserve legacy services and infrastructure services, enable new serviceswhere customer demand dictates (without requiring whole new networks), andsupport stringent SLAs in both legacy and new-generation data services.CARRIER MIGRATION FROM CIRCUIT TOP ACKETEnterprise TrendsEnterprises are key customers of network service providers (NSPs). To put serviceprovider challenges in the proper context, it is critical to understand thetransformations occurring within the enterprises that NSPs serve.Enterprise networks continue to evolve. IDC survey research shows significantinterest and adoption of advanced packet services, such as metro Ethernet services,IP VPNs, Layer 2 VPNs, and VoIP technology, as a replacement for TDM services.At the same time that they are adopting new, innovative technologies, businessescontinue to rely heavily on traditional voice and data services that are well understoodand widely deployed throughout their networks. These traditional, or legacy services,include TDM private lines, frame relay, and ATM services. IDC research shows that,although these services are not growing, they will, nonetheless, remain a large part ofenterprise WAN budgets over the next five years.As enterprises roll out advanced data services, it has quickly become apparent thatthey are not willing to give up the key benefits of the "legacy" services in moving tothe new services. In particular, with private line services, frame relay, and ATM,enterprises receive service level agreements (SLAs) from NSPs that guarantee themavailability of 99.99% ("four nines") and 99.999% ("five nines"), meaning no morethan 5 to 52 minutes of downtime during a given year.As an example, early implementations of metro Ethernet services were "best effort"only, but, as the service has matured, enterprises are increasingly demanding morestringent SLAs on packet services, and NSPs are responding to the enterprisedemand.At the same time, enterprise customers want the benefits of advanced data services.These benefits include higher bandwidths, lower costs per megabits per second fordata transported, network simplification, simplified network management, higherperformance, and greater network flexibility (e.g., through various quality and class ofservice options, through bandwidth that scales upward and downward depending oncurrent needs, or through point-to-point and point-to-multipoint service options).2 #05C4475 ©2005 IDC
  3. 3. For enterprises building out their own networks, they are demanding carrier gradereliability and survivability.One example of higher performance demand is in datacenter connectivity, whereenterprises have a need for high-bandwidth connections between the datacenters,with high-availability guarantees for mission-critical data, and, increasingly, a need totransport that data hundreds, and even thousands, of miles to back-up sites. Serviceproviders are responding to these needs by building custom networks and by rollingout new services targeted at storage extension.Service Provider TrendsChanges in customer demands are causing carriers to dramatically change the waythey architect their networks. In addition, carrier requirements to cut their costs —both operational and capital expenses — are causing further reevaluation of networkarchitecture design. The best network solutions for carriers are ones that meet theircustomers needs for next-generation services and also address their ownrequirements for lower capital and operational costs.The following is an example of how major changes in customer behavior havedramatically impacted carrier networks. Ten years ago, voice private lines dominatedthe enterprise WAN, and wide area data services were relatively new. Carrier networkbackbone traffic was almost exclusively circuit voice.Today, enterprise WANs are a mix of data services, such as frame relay and ATM,and next-generation data services, such as metro Ethernet and IP VPNs. Private linesno longer dominate, and even revenue from "legacy" data services — such as framerelay and ATM — is reaching a plateau, as enterprise WANs migrate to Ethernet andIP. Looking at the carrier network traffic mix, data traffic (and, in particular, IP traffic)accounts for more than 50% of carrier network traffic. Ten years from now, carriernetwork traffic will be nearly all data, and circuit voice, as a percentage of totalnetwork traffic, will be miniscule.Still, voice dominates the carrier revenue mix today, and, although data is clearly theNSP revenue growth engine, voice cannot be ignored. Figures 1 and 2 detail IDCsforecasts for voice and data revenue and revenue growth over the next several years.©2005 IDC #05C4475 3
  4. 4. FIGURE 1Worldwide Voice and Data Revenue, 2003–2008 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 ($M) 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Data Total VoiceSource: IDC, 2005FIGURE 2Worldwide Voice and Data Revenue Growth, 2003–2008 16 14 12 10 (%) 8 6 4 2 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Voice Growth Data GrowthSource: IDC, 20054 #05C4475 ©2005 IDC
  5. 5. Constraints on carrier budgets are well known in the industry. With capex spend athistorically low levels, carriers must increasingly look to savings on networkoperations to drive further efficiencies in their networks and improve their margins andprofitability. Network operations have become a major focus as NSPs plan their next-generation networks. New network elements must not only save on capex but alsohelp NSPs to cut their operations costs.CARRIER NGN REQUIREMENTSThis section delves into greater detail of the network requirements for carrier NGNs,driven by the carrier and customer trends that were highlighted above.Supporting New ServicesNew services are critical for NSP success moving forward. As voice and legacy dataservice revenue declines, NSPs need new services to fill the revenue void. Moreimportant, enterprise customers are demanding new services from their NSPs. If theincumbent provider doesnt have what a customer needs, they will redirect theirmoney with a new NSP that does offer it.Enterprises are demanding the following functionality and requirements from theirNSPs:! Higher-availability data services! Preservation of their existing data and voice services! Interworking between their existing data services and new data services! Lower price per Mbps of data transported! LAN-like functionality in the WAN! Strong and specific SLAs for premium services (for which they are willing to pay more)! Tiered options in terms of both bandwidth and SLAs, so that services can be custom-tailored to their specific (and changing) network requirements! Large footprint so that all major and remote sites can be linked together without requiring a hodge-podge of different carriers and servicesMetro Ethernet is one new data service that is gaining momentum (see Figure 3). Inthe United States, metro Ethernet services reached $333 million in 2003, and IDCforecasts that metro Ethernet services will reach $1.3 billion by 2008, increasing at a31% compound annual growth rate (CAGR).©2005 IDC #05C4475 5
  6. 6. FIGURE 3U.S. Metro Ethernet Revenue, 2003-2008 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 ($M) 600 400 200 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Source: IDC, 2005Storage extension is another area of growing interest within the enterprise, asenterprises need to connect datacenters across distances ranging from tens of milesto thousands of miles, primarily for business continuity and disaster recoverypurposes. Originally, storage extension was driven by large financial companies.Heightened awareness of security in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks,however, has increased interest in business continuity and disaster recovery planning(including storage extension) to other industries.In addition to financial services, promising industries include healthcare,manufacturing, and professional services, among others.New regulatory requirements in finance (Sarbanes-Oxley) and healthcare (HIPPA)are additional drivers for storage extension consideration in these industries.The largest enterprises prefer a do-it-yourself (DIY) approach to building extendedSANs, but beyond the largest enterprises there is a balanced mix of enterprises thatare planning DIY projects and those looking to outsource at least some pieces of theirprojects to outside vendors.IP VPNs provide another newer and rapidly growing enterprise data service that isreplacing private lines and frame relay services. IDC believes that, over the next fiveyears, IP VPNs will become the most popular WAN technology in the United States.The U.S. market totaled $12.5 billion in revenue in 2004, and IDC forecasts themarket will reach $20.9 billion in 2009.6 #05C4475 ©2005 IDC
  7. 7. Maintaining Legacy ServicesThe requirement for NSPs to support legacy services is clear from enterprisecustomer needs. Enterprises are migrating to data services, as described above, butthey are not migrating overnight. IDC expects that legacy data services, such asframe relay and ATM, will continue for many years to come. Enterprise requirementsfor new services to interwork with legacy services underscore this reality.On the VoIP side, IDC sees the enterprise move from circuit to packet (VoIP) also asa migration — whether its IP PBX, managed IP PBX, or NSP-hosted VoIP. VoIP is acomplex technology, and it is not an easy decision for a company to move all of itsvoice traffic onto the IP network. While this planning and ultimate migration takesplace, enterprises will continue to rely on trusted circuit voice, and NSPs will need tosupport these services to retain existing customers, and even to gain new ones.Moreover, from the NSPs perspective, they have made a massive investment inlegacy networks over the years. These legacy network elements include COswitches, SONET/SDH ADMS, digital cross connects, and ATM and frame relayswitches, among others. For large NSPs, these aggregate investments can totalbillions of dollars.Both NSPs and DIY enterprises need solutions that protect existing infrastructureinvestments as they make the transition to next generation.Its not possible to simply swap out these network assets for new ones, and, in thecurrent climate of severe cost constraints, its in the best interest of many NSPs tosqueeze as much use and revenue as possible out of existing network investmentsbefore replacing them.Mitigating RisksNSPs face many risks in making their NGN network decisions — and in not makingthem.Clearly, they face a risk of making a wrong technology decision. Technologyinvestments are expensive and carrier capital budgets are limited. If NSPs place astrong bet on a data service that doesnt take off, they face the risk not only of wastingthe capital and operational dollars invested in that service, but also of missing the"next big thing" completely because they drained their resources on the wrong thing.One needs to look no further back than the telecom boom to find examples of bigtechnology bets that went sour — with the alternative carriers that spent billions onfiber-optic equipment and networks for an anticipated boom in bandwidth wholesalingthat never materialized. The result for many of these unfortunate CLECs wasbankruptcy filing and/or market exit.The risk of doing nothing can be equally disastrous. Enterprise networking needs areevolving rapidly, and competition among NSPs on a global scale is fierce, driven inlarge part by ongoing deregulation of telecom markets around the world. Enterpriseshave more choices for their telecom needs than theyve ever had, and if they cant getwhat they need from their existing supplier, they will choose another.©2005 IDC #05C4475 7
  8. 8. In areas where competition is heavy and services are commoditized (e.g., long-distance voice) they will pit service provider against service provider and competestrictly on price. The effect on NSPs is plummeting revenues, and, more important,plummeting margins.There is also a risk in making the right technology bets, but investing in the righttechnology at the wrong time. It is often easier to predict what technologies will winthan it is to predict when they will take off, and how quickly the migration will occurwhen they do come of age. Broadband is one example of this difficulty. Broadbandwas hyped as the next big technology in the mid 1990s, but it is only in the last twoyears that broadband really hit critical mass. VoIP is another great example. Manystart-up equipment companies cropped up in the 1990s, languished for years, andwent bankrupt, completely missing the boom in residential and enterprise VoIP that isnow beginning.From a network perspective, in making the right technology bets at the wrong time,NSPs risk:! Deploying hardware in their networks that is never used! Building networks that need to be replaced before the end of their useful life! Deploying expensive convergence solutions that are short-livedNSPs need to understand the risks. In making their NGN decisions, NSPs need tomitigate these risks as much as possible. To do so, a flexible, adaptable andmanageable network architecture is essential.Layered NetworksHistorically, NSPs have dealt with change and evolution in their customer base with aparallel and layered network approach. For example, when ATM networks emerged inthe 1990s, NSPs built separate ATM networks for their enterprise customers, withthese new networks often running alongside their existing private line networks to thesame customers. The NSP network infrastructure, however, remained SONET/SDH,so ATM access networks fed into SONET/SDH networks, and, in some cases, intoDWDM core transport networks.Although the layered network approach clearly works — NSPs have been buildinglayered networks for years — it is not efficient, from a capital cost perspective or froman operational costs perspective. Separate networks require separate equipment,separate management systems, separate technicians, separate operations, andcomplex interworking to get network traffic from one network to another network — ifinterworking can be done at all. In addition, with layered and parallel networks,bandwidth is managed poorly and is often stranded throughout the network. Forexample, available bandwidth from an underutilized service cannot be used to addcapacity to another service that is reaching its bandwidth limits.When NSP capital budgets were expanding annually, this inherently inefficient butworkable approach was acceptable. But, in todays capital-constrained environment,8 #05C4475 ©2005 IDC
  9. 9. in which annual capex growth is expected to be flat at best, NSPs must find moreefficient ways to introduce new services and transport network traffic.All-Packet NetworksAnother NGN approach is to build an all-packet network. Driving the all-packetnetwork opportunity is the fact that enterprises are migrating from circuit-to-packetservices. VoIP is gaining momentum in the enterprise. TDM private lines, once theworkhorse of the enterprise WAN, have been replaced in growth and significance bya host of data services, including emerging Ethernet and IP data services.Some NSPs have built their networks around an all-packet approach, focusingprimarily on various enterprise data services (with circuit emulation for TDM services).The challenge is that, as pointed out, enterprise networking needs are a mix of oldservices and newer services, voice and data, legacy data and next-generation data.Although the mixes are shifting, there will be a large mix for the foreseeable future.Full migrations to newer services, for most enterprises, will take place over manyyears. NSPs building packet-only networks will miss out on enterprise legacy servicebusiness while these migrations take place.For alternative carriers and CLECs that have the liberty to target emerging, high-growth applications (such as metro Ethernet services), the all-packet approach is aviable option — though not without its challenges. For large incumbent carriers — theRBOCs and major IXCs in the United States and PTTs around the world — ignoringthe large legacy business of their enterprise customers is simply not feasible.Flexible Hybrid ApproachFor the largest operators, a hybrid network architecture approach that preserveslegacy services and legacy infrastructure investments, and at the same time enablesthe timely introduction and scaling of new services for enterprise customers, presentsthe best network migration scenario. Key to the hybrid architecture is:! Network and network element convergence, where sensible, to save money on capital spending and operational spending! Preservation of existing legacy voice and data network services! Flexibility to add new services when customers require them and without completely swapping out networks to do so! Flexibility to add new services without requiring entire new networks (overlay and parallel networks) to do so! Ability to support stringent SLAs on emerging data services similar to SLAs that enterprise customers are accustomed to receiving for legacy services, such as four-nines and five-nines reliability©2005 IDC #05C4475 9
  10. 10. CONCLUSIONIronically, as network complexity continues to grow, a need is emerging for simple,flexible networks. Current service provider models, built on overlay and parallelnetworks, are too expensive in todays NSP environment, where the focus is oncutting network costs and improving the profitability of data services. In addition, theparallel and overlay models scale poorly and inefficiently (often stranding bandwidthin the network) and are cumbersome in adjusting to the changing demands of theNSP customers and the network.Convergence is a popular buzzword in industry discussions today. New technologiesthat were not available a few years ago are enabling convergence in new ways.Clearly, convergence of networks and various network elements saves money onequipment for NSPs, and, thus, contributes to cost reductions. However, NSPs mustconverge their networks with their customers, and the future demands of theirnetwork, in mind. And its important to note that converged solutions can supportlegacy services as well as new services and offer a migration path to the all-packetarchitecture of the future.In this vein, NSPs are encouraged to explore flexible, hybrid network options thatconverge where sensible; preserve legacy services and infrastructure services;enable new services where customer demand dictates — without requiring whole newnetworks — and support stringent SLAs in both legacy and new-generation dataservices.ADDENDUMEnabling TechnologiesSeveral recent technology innovations are key enablers to the flexible, hybridnetwork.Network ProcessorsHistorically, higher-layer network processing functions (e.g., classification,modification, forwarding, and queuing/shaping) within most telecom and high-endnetworking infrastructure were handled by internally developed custom application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs). Over the past few years, however, risingnonrecurring engineering (NRE) costs and longer time-to-market design cycles tocreate network processing ASICs have made this process much more difficult tojustify. With the semiconductor industry moving toward smaller 0.13µ and0.09µ manufacturing geometries coupled with larger 12in. (300mm) wafers, thehigher-volume-per-wafer output will further limit the number of OEMs that will be ableto achieve the break-even volumes required to offset these higher up-frontengineering costs.Since the downturn of 2001 and 2002, many telecom and networking infrastructureOEMs have been migrating to programmable designs built around a new breed of"off-the-shelf" network processors (NPUs). Increased availability of NPU solutions,most notably from AMCC, Intel, Agere Systems, has encouraged more OEMs to start10 #05C4475 ©2005 IDC
  11. 11. building their systems based around these chip products. In 2004, most vendorsoffered products that were capable of throughput from OC-3 (155Mbps) to OC-192(10Gbps) line rates. In addition to raw performance, NPUs also enable the OEM toadjust their design via software instead of recreating a more hard-wired ASIC. This isespecially important for changing standards. Some vendors have taken the approachof using field programmable gate array (FPGA) technology to create their own custombuilt NPU to help maintain a competitive advantage.In 2004, most of the early NPU design activity continued within new MAN/WANswitches, routers, and access aggregation systems (i.e., mostly DSLAMs, but alsosome cellular infrastructure). In these designs, we believe an NPU vendors ability todeliver improved throughput performance, while also offering easier-to-use softwareprogramming tools, remained the primary selection criteria in this market. Many NPUvendors have already built reference design kits for certain application markets tohelp accelerate development time for OEMs in more standardized and higher volumesegments, such as DSLAMs and cellular infrastructure.In the long term, we expect the NPU learning curve will continue to accelerate asthese semiconductor vendors become more system oriented and are able to helpOEMs create line cards much faster and lower in cost than before. Many NPUvendors have already started to ship solutions that are capable of handling OC-192 or10GbE line rates. In the end, more telecom and networking OEMs will continue tomigrate their packet processing designs over to NPUs as the capability of thesemerchant approaches increases steadily in the future. Therefore, with exception to afew core infrastructure markets where proprietary cutting-edge ASICs will still bemaintained, most mainstream line card designs will migrate toward NPUs. Figure 4illustrates how network processors can be used to improve next-generation systems.FIGURE 4Ciena FlexiPort Reduces Multiple Line Cards to a Single,Flexible OneSource: Ciena, 2005©2005 IDC #05C4475 11
  12. 12. G.709G.709 is an important ingredient in next-generation optical solutions. G.709 is an ITU-T standard framing technique (ratified in 2001) designed for DWDM networks that issimilar in structure and function to the common SONET/SDH framing approach.Digital wrapper, as the G.709 standard is commonly called, is used for monitoring andmanaging DWDM wavelengths in optical transmissions, and can replace SONETframing used for these functions today. Digital wrapper differs from SONET framing inthat it operates at the wavelength layer — adding overhead bits to 2.5Gbps or10Gbps wavelengths — whereas SONET framing is applied to multiple lower-speedchannels that make up the SONET transmission (see Figure 5).FIGURE 5G.709 Digital Wrapper Encapsulation G.709 Digital Wrapper Encapsulation SONET/SDH Storage G.709 device C /DWDM OTU1/ OTU2 Overhead w /GCC0 Management bytes Ethernet Overhead PayloadSource: Ciena, 2005Digital wrapper, which is largely based on forward error correction (FEC) techniques,enables performance monitoring. FEC in digital wrapper is analogous to BIP-8 error12 #05C4475 ©2005 IDC
  13. 13. monitoring in SONET networks. The key benefits of digital wrapper are errormonitoring, error correction, and protection for protocols that do not have built-inprotection schemes, including Gigabit Ethernet, FICON, and Fibre Channel.Although digital wrapper is unlikely to displace SONET in voice networks, it bringsvisibility to optical data networks — meaning that SONET equipment will not beneeded for transporting traffic such as gigabit ethernet, FICON, and Fibre Channel.G.709, to date, has garnered the most interest and momentum in Europe. NorthAmerican services providers, however, have increased their interest in thistechnology significantly over the past 18 months. Interest levels in North Americavary, but the major NSPs are at least evaluating the technology as an option for all-optical networking and as a replacement for SONET on the network side in somehigh-speed applications. Some NSPs, but not all, are also looking at G.709 for theclient-side interfaces as well.GMPLSGMPLS is an extension of the IETFs existing MPLS standard to include not onlypacket layer equipment but also TDM equipment, DWDM equipment, and opticalequipment that switches individual fibers. GMPLS is a control plane standard forprovisioning bandwidth in optical networks. The standard focuses on both thesignaling and routing parts of the control plane. The standard is being developed by aworking group of the IETF. As a common control plane for equipment residing indifferent networks, equipment from different vendors, and different classes ofequipment, GMPLS holds the promise of unifying carrier networks and enabling thetrue end-to-end bandwidth provisioning that is often talked about in vendorPowerPoint presentations.Value PropositionGMPLS is a key enabler of the intelligent optical network. The term has been usedloosely in vendor marketing campaigns for years, but intelligence in optical networkscan be defined as taking manual, time-consuming, and labor-intensive processes incarrier operations — such as capacity provisioning — and building those functionsinto the network so that they become automated (point and click) and, ultimately,dynamic (machine to machine).The optical cross connect (OCC) is the central network element in the intelligentnetwork, and GMPLS is the central control plane standard that enablescommunication among equipment from different vendors, different types of networkelements, and networks of different carriers.In traditional SONET-based networks, provisioning bandwidth to customers is difficult,manual, and time-consuming. In the GMPLS-enabled optical network, opticalbandwidth provisioning can, conceivably, take place in minutes. In a dynamicenvironment, a router or ATM switch signals to the optical network when additionalbandwidth is needed. Then, the OCCs in the network determine the path, set up theconnection, and provision the required bandwidth to the end customer. Thetremendous reduction in time to provision bandwidth combined with the automation of©2005 IDC #05C4475 13
  14. 14. the process translates directly into cost savings by requiring fewer people to completetasks, taking far less time, and requiring less total labor.In addition to cost savings provided by GMPLS-enabled provisioning, carriers benefitfrom faster revenue recognition from new services, which translates into increasedoverall revenue for the carrier. A third, difficult to quantify but important valueproposition of GMPLS optical networks is the competitive advantage of fasterprovisioning, which helps carriers hold onto existing customers and win newcustomers. (Carriers that can respond to customer service requests quickest arebetter positioned in a competitive market.)XFPXFP is a multisource agreement (MSA) among several major vendors for small formfactor 10Gbps DWDM transponders. Founding member companies include BroadcomCorporation, Brocade, Emulex Corporation, Finisar, JDS Uniphase, Maxim IntegratedProducts, Ciena (through its ONI acquisition), ICS (a Sumitomo Electric company),Tyco Electronics, and Velio.XFP is designed with flexibility in mind. Specifically, the modules will supportOC192/STM64, 10Gbps Fibre Channel, G.709, and 10Gbps Ethernet, typically withinthe same module. Because the modules are developed as part of an MSA, andbecause they will support multiple enterprise and telecom technologies, the modulesare expected to be lower in cost than previous 10Gbps modules that are singlevendor and single protocol. In addition, the XFP form factor is more compact than thecompeting XENPAK MSA for 10 Gbps — meaning less space on a card and lowerpower consumption.On the cautionary side, the movement toward pluggable optics at 10 Gbps is new andrelatively untested. Systems vendor products with XFP are just coming to market, sotesting is needed. In addition, the optical industry has yet to settle on a single"standard" for DWDM transponders, meaning there remains a risk that othercompeting standards may yet emerge and displace XFP and others.Copyright NoticeExternal Publication of IDC Information and Data — Any IDC information that is to beused in advertising, press releases, or promotional materials requires prior writtenapproval from the appropriate IDC Vice President or Country Manager. A draft of theproposed document should accompany any such request. IDC reserves the right todeny approval of external usage for any reason.Copyright 2005 IDC. Reproduction without written permission is completely forbidden.14 #05C4475 ©2005 IDC