OTN MPLS Control Plane Service Provider Survey 05-01-13

7/28/2019 OTN MPLS Control Plane Service Provider Survey 05-01-13

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/otn-mpls-control-plane-service-provider-survey-05-01-13 1/22

OTN, MPLS, and Control Plane Strategies:

Global Service Provider Survey May 1, 2013

This is a paid service intended for the recipient organization only; reproduction and sharing with third parties is prohibited.

Copyright © 2013 by Infonetics Research, Inc. All rights reserved.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TOP TAKEAWAYS: OTN SWITCHING POISED TO GO MAINSTREAM ............................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Background .................................................................................................................................................1 Methodology and Demographics Overview.....................................................................................................2

OTN AS A TRANSPORT OR SWITCHING TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................. 2 OTN SWITCHING—WHY NOT?................................................................................................................ 4 WHO WANTS PACKET OPTICAL VERSUS STANDALONE OTN ..................................................................... 4 BUILDING THE PERFECT WDM MACHINE ................................................................................................ 5 THE IMPORTANCE OF INTEGRATED WDM AND OTN SWITCHING ............................................................... 7 NODE PENETRATION OF OTN SWITCHING ................................................................................................ 9 OTN SWITCH NODE SIZES ...................................................................................................................... 9 APPROACHES AND MOTIVATION FOR NETWORK PROTECTION .................................................................. 12 OPTICAL TRANSPORT TOPOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 13 BENEFITS OF SHARED OPTICAL MESH PROTECTION ................................................................................ 15 BOTTOM LINE ....................................................................................................................................... 17 METHODOLOGY AND DEMOGRAPHICS ..................................................................................................... 17

Respondents Are Influential in the Purchase Decision ...................................................................................17



OTN, MPLS, AND CONTROL PLANE STRATEGIES: GLOBAL SERVICE PROVIDER SURVEY



ii

LIST OF EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT 1 OTN SWITCHING VS TRANSPORT BY RESPONDENTS AND CAPEX ....................................... 3 EXHIBIT 2 OTN SWITCHING AND PACKET SWITCHING IN THE SAME PLATFORM ................................. 5 EXHIBIT 3 DESIRED OTN AND DATA FUNCTIONS IN WDM EQUIPMENT ................................................ 6 EXHIBIT 4 WDM INTERFACES ON OTN SWITCH EQUIPMENT: METRO .................................................. 7 EXHIBIT 5 WDM INTERFACES ON OTN SWITCH GEAR: CORE .............................................................. 8 EXHIBIT 6 NODES WITH OTN SWITCHING INSTALLED ........................................................................ 9 EXHIBIT 7 OTN SWITCH METRO NODE SIZES .................................................................................... 10 EXHIBIT 8 OTN REGIONAL/LH SWITCH NODE SIZES ........................................................................... 11 EXHIBIT 9 PROTECTION LAYERS ...................................................................................................... 12 EXHIBIT 10 OPTICAL TRANSPORT TOPOLOGY ...................................................................................... 14 EXHIBIT 11 SHARED OPTICAL MESH PROTECTION VS 1+1 PROTECTION............................................... 15 EXHIBIT 12 SHARED OPTICAL MESH PROTECTION VS MPLS FAST REROUTE ......................................... 16 EXHIBIT 13 RESPONDENTS HAVE A LOT OF PURCHASE INFLUENCE ...................................................... 17 EXHIBIT 14 RESPONDENTS REPRESENT A DECENT PORTION OF

2012 WORLDWIDE CAPEX AND REVENUE ......................................................................... 18 EXHIBIT 15 RESPONDENT SERVICE PROVIDER TYPES AND REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION ............................ 19 EXHIBIT 16 SURVEY SAMPLE 2012 VS. 2013 .................................................................................... 20






1

TOP TAKEAWAYS: OTN SWITCHING POISED TO GO MAINSTREAM

OTN switching is gaining in popularity, and the number of carriers planning to use it is rising: this year,

86% of respondents, even higher than the 76% last year, are planning to deploy OTN switching. Only 3 of

21 respondents this year have no interest.

The results show a stronger preference for OTN switching in general and greater emphasis on integrating

OTN switching with WDM interfaces in the same hardware platform. By 2016, 86% of respondents plan to

use OTN switching in the core, and only 1 of them prefers to have the WDM transport equipment

separate from the OTN switching equipment. This indicates that the OTN switching market and the WDM

transport market are in the process of combining, which will result in an even larger market size for OTN

switching than we currently anticipate.

Today, interest in systems that combine OTN circuit switching and layer 2 packet switching is lower thanfor standalone OTN equipment. It appears service providers are still figuring out this concept. But by

2016, interest in this architecture rises dramatically, with 89% of respondents planning to deploy this type

of equipment in their networks. This packet optical architecture is far more popular in the metro than in

the core—almost half of service providers (44%) still plan to use standalone OTN in the core. Overall, it is

clear that spending will expand from the 9% of the market this category currently represents.

Penetration of OTN switching as a percentage of nodes in the network is mostly unchanged from last

year, with the exception of the future metro. By 2016, the number of respondents planning to deploy OTN

switching in the metro rose from 20% in last year’s survey to 48% this year.

Finally, interest in OTN shared mesh protection is rising, primarily because of the better economics it

provides. Though only 24% of respondents use this architecture in existing networks, this rises to 71% by2016—a 47% gain. This surge in interest is network wide but concentrated in the core—95% of

respondents are planning to use partial or full mesh protection as the primary protection method there.

INTRODUCTION

Background

In 2012, our OTN and WDM service provider survey added questions that sought to identify the number

of operators planning to deploy OTN switching. We also wanted to understand to what degree these

operators wanted layer 2 functions (defined as packet optical or P-OTS) integrated and to what degree

this function would be used in networks. We also wanted to know what percentage of operators planned

to bypass OTN switching altogether. These questions are still equally relevant in 2013, and we asked

them again to see if things had changed.

This year, we added some questions regarding protection methods in the optical layer which apply to

carriers that may or may not be using OTN switching.






2

We also wanted to understand to what degree OTN switching and WDM interfaces need to be combined

in the same equipment as this is important for our own work in forecasting the potential size of the OTN

market. If OTN switching is ubiquitous and includes WDM interfaces, it is a vital function for systems, and

the size of the OTN switching market may be much larger than we believed.

Methodology and Demographics Overview

Using a panel of qualified service provider decision-makers, we conducted a survey via telephone and

web in March and April of 2012 with 21 organizations that have deployed OTN transmission or switching

equipment or equipment with G.709 interfaces, or that plan to do so by the end of 2013. This is a good

sample as it represents 34% of worldwide 2011 telecom capex.

To qualify, respondents must have detailed knowledge of and purchase decision influence for their

organizations’ OTN transmission and switching equipment. 76% of respondents are either the primary

decision-maker or have a lot of influence.

Please see “Methodology and Demographics” at the end of this document for details on the sample.

OTN AS A TRANSPORT OR SWITCHING TECHNOLOGY

OTN transport equipment is already widespread, and carriers are familiar with it—all 21 carriers we

interviewed have deployed OTN transport equipment. We asked respondents whether they have already

deployed OTN equipment or plan to do so by the end of 2014 to ensure respondents are familiar with the

technology.

We then asked if they plan to deploy electrical OTN switching (OTN digital crossconnects) or if they will

deploy OTN only for point-to-point transport (with G.709 FEC and performance monitoring). The resultsare decidedly lopsided, with 86% (18 of 21 responses) planning to deploy OTN switching. This is even

higher than the 76% recorded last year. This is also higher than the market consensus that only a handful

of carriers use OTN switching.

When we weighted responses by the capex of the responding carrier, 93% of the dollars spent by

respondents are from carriers that planned to deploy OTN as a switching technology. Another way to look

at it: of the capex totals of the 21 respondents, 93% of that investment came from 18 of 21 (86%) carriers.

Last year, the capex percentage was slightly lower at 90%. The carriers avoiding OTN switching tend to

have capex below the average capex of respondents.

The same conclusion as last year applies: carriers that plan to deploy OTN switching typically have

greater capex than those that do not. More importantly, the year-to-year trend shows an even higher

adoption rate for OTN switching. It used to be said there was a sizeable minority who would bypass OTN

switching, but this year’s sample shows that minority is dwindling.






3

Exhibit 1 OTN Switching vs Transport by Respondents and Capexn=21

14%

86%

93%

7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Electrical OTN switching OTN as transport-only technology

Plans for OTN

P e r c e n t o f R e s p o n d e n t s

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

P e r c e n

t o f T o t a l S a m p l e C a p e x

Percent of respondents Percent of total sample capex






4

OTN SWITCHING—WHY NOT?

We asked the 3 respondents who aren't deploying OTN switching to list their reasons in an open-ended

response.

The reasons they provided centered on the fact that they planned to operate an all-IP network and that

packet switching would be used. One provider indicated that for the areas where sub-wavelength

optimization was needed, existing SDH equipment could perform the job, and there was no need to

introduce an OTN switching platform.

All 3 of the providers indicated a preference for layer 3 protection mechanisms, and 1 provider cited the

large number of OTN channels that they would need in order to support a switching function that in reality

is rarely needed for static point to point connections.

WHO WANTS PACKET OPTICAL VERSUS STANDALONE OTN

Next, we sought to understand more details about the types of equipment carriers wanted to deploy and

to what degree they wished to have vertical integration of multiple OSI layers. Exhibits 2 through 8 include

only respondents who plan to use electrical OTN switching—respondents who plan to use OTN as a

G.709 transport-only technology were excluded.

We were particularly interested in whether respondents planned to deploy packet switching and OTN

switching in the same equipment platform. We classify such systems as packet optical transport systems

(P-OTS), which have evolved in capabilities over past years to where a single chassis is capable of

providing WDM and ROADM capabilities, non-blocking SDH or OTN circuit switching, and some degree

of L2 switching. This market represents 10% of all optical spending today, and we expect it to account for

approximately 20% of all spending by 2017 (see the March 7, 2013, edition of our OTN and Packet

Optical Hardware biannual worldwide and regional market share, size, and forecasts report).






5

Exhibit 2 OTN Switching and Packet Switching in the Same Platformn=18, 18

44%

89%

56%

11%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2013 2016

OTN and Packet Switching in Same Platform

P e r c e n t

o f R e s p o n d e n t s P l a n n i n g

t o

U s e O T N S w i t c h i n g

Yes

No

There is a major divergence between what operators are doing today and what they expect to do in 2016.

The majority of companies that are deploying OTN switching are doing so without integrating packet

switching in the same chassis. But by 2016, almost all respondents (16 of 18, or 89%) expect to combine

OTN switching and packet switching in the same platform. This would indicate that though vendors’

systems need not support comprehensive Ethernet or MPLS switching functions today, the expectation

within 3 years is that almost everyone will need them.

Unfortunately we did not ask this question last year, so these results cannot be compared with 2012 to

look at trends. It’s a good question for next year!

BUILDING THE PERFECT WDM MACHINE

We asked the 16 respondents who plan to deploy packet switching and OTN switching in the sameequipment platform by 2016 which functions should be combined into the WDM/ROADM hardware

platform. We allowed different responses for the metro and regional/long haul to determine if those

seeking packet and OTN switching integration planned to do so only in one or the other.






6

In the regional/long haul area, nearly half (44%) of service providers desired no layer 2 or above

integration with the WDM and OTN switching layer, preferring to use dedicated MPLS switches or IP

routers for this job. The other 56% wanted layer 0 through layer 2+integration. Remarkably, none of the

respondents answered “don’t know.”

There was a much different picture in the metro as this is where integration was expected. It is also the

area of greatest uncertainty, with nearly a third of respondents (31%) unsure of what they want. Half of

the respondents specified OTN and layer 2 integration with preferences evenly split between requiring

MPLS. A few respondents (2 of 16, or 12%) indicated no OTN switching was needed and emphasis

should be on layer 2+WDM along the lines of the Huawei PTN platform. Only 1 carrier wanted full IP

routing integration, a feature we don’t believe any vendor is actively pursuing.

Exhibit 3 Desired OTN and Data Functions in WDM Equipmentn=16, 16

0%

25%

25%

6%

44%

25%

25%

6%

6%

6%

31%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Metro Regional/long haul

Network Type

A v e r a

g e P e r c e n t

OTN switching OTN+Ethernet switchingOTN+Ethernet+MPLS switching OTN+MPLS switchingEthernet+MPLS switching MPLS switchingOTN+Ethernet+MPLS switching+IP routing No preference/Don't know






7

THE IMPORTANCE OF INTEGRATED WDM AND OTN SWITCHING

Some equipment vendors are building WDM interfaces into OTN switching platforms, but it isn’t clear

whether carriers, which have traditionally separated some switching functions from transport, plan to usethis functionality. We wanted to determine what proportion of carriers that use or plan to use OTN

switching want WDM interfaces on that equipment, and where and when in the network this approach is

preferred.

Nearly half of the OTN switching respondents (44%) prefer to have the WDM interfaces combined with

the OTN switch in the metro, rising to 83% by 2016. This is not surprising as service providers strongly

prefer integration when possible in metro systems. The answers also provide insight into the adoption

rate for OTN switching in the metro: of the 18 OTN switching respondents, the percentage not deploying

OTN switching in the metro drops from 39% now to 17% by 2016.

Exhibit 4 WDM Interfaces on OTN Switch Equipment: Metron=18, 18

39%

17%

44%

83%

0%

17%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Not deploying OTN

switching in this portion

of the network

Keep OTN switch

equipment separate

from WDM transport

equipment

WDM interfaces are built

into OT N switch

O T N a n d W D M

E q u i p m e n t

Percent of Respondents Planning to Use OTN Switchi ng

2016

Now






8

The results for the core show a stronger preference for OTN switching in general as well as greater

emphasis on integrated OTN switching with WDM. By 2016, all 18 respondents plan to use OTN

switching in the core, and only 1 prefers to have the WDM transport equipment separate from the OTN

switching equipment.

Exhibit 5 WDM Interfaces on OTN Switch Gear: Coren=18, 18

17%

17%

67%

94%

6%

0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Not deploying OTN

switching in this portion

of the network

Keep OTN switch

equipment separate

from WDM transport

equipment

WDM interfaces are built

into OT N switch

O T N a n d W D M E q u i p

m e n t

Percent of Respondents Planning to Use OTN Switchi ng

2016

Now






9

NODE PENETRATION OF OTN SWITCHING

We asked respondents to benchmark their networks by estimating the percentage of nodes that have

OTN switching installed in metro and long haul networks today and in 2016. Again, the core is the area of the greatest activity. These numbers are average responses across all 18 providers—some are 0% and

others are 100%.

Exhibit 6 Nodes with OTN Switching Installedn=13, 18

54%

19%

76%

48%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Now 2016

Nodes with OTN Switching Install ed

P e r c e n t o f R e s p o n d e n t s P l a n n i n g

t o U s e O T N S w i t c h i n g

Metro nodes

Regional/long haul nodes

We asked this same question last year, and the results were about the same with the exception that the

number of respondents planning to deploy OTN switching in the metro rose from 20% to 48%, a

significant increase illustrating that there is greater interest in deploying OTN switching in metro nodes.

This is supported by qualitative conversations we have had with some carriers.

OTN SWITCH NODE SIZES

It is important to understand not just future penetration of OTN switching in metro and regional/LH (long

haul) nodes, but also what the size of these nodes will be. We asked respondents to estimate the

average equipped OTN switch node size and the maximum node size, and obtained values for metro and

regional/LH networks for today and 2016.






10

The aggregate responses can be viewed in an X-Y chart with each respondent's average OTN switch

size plotted on the X-axis and maximum size plotted on the Y. This gives the reader an idea of the range

of respondents’ requirements. The responses for the metro show little growth in average node size while

maximum node size shows gains, with the average maximum node size in the metro nearly matching theaverage node size in regional/LH.

Exhibit 7 OTN Switch Metro Node Sizesn=6, 10

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000

Average OTN Swi tch Size (Gbps)

M a x i m u m

O T N S w i t c h S i z e ( G b p s )

Metro Now Metro 2016






11

The results for the regional and long haul network have much wider distribution, but average node size for

this portion of the network doubles between now and 2016 from 1.4T to 4.1T.

Exhibit 8 OTN Regional/Long Haul Switch Node Sizesn=13, 15

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000

Average OTN Swi tch Size (Gbps)

M a x i m u m

O T N S w i t c h S i z e ( G b p s )

Regional/long haul Now Regional/long haul 2016






12

APPROACHES AND MOTIVATION FOR NETWORK PROTECTION

Note: for the remaining exhib its in th is report, we include all respondents (not just the ones

planning OTN switching).

A new objective for the survey this year is to determine which network protection mechanisms are in use

today, which are the most popular, and how service providers expect this to change 3 years from now.

We also wanted to know what function respondents perceive as most valuable for OTN mesh protection.

OTN shared mesh protection appears on the verge of widespread adoption, with a 47-point increase in

expected deployment (with a total of 71% in 2016 and 24% today). Optical restoration via ROADM is

second with a 38 point gain to 67%. There is little change in the use of OTN 1+1 or MPLS-based

protection schemes, and SONET/SDH shows an expected decline. The respondents to this survey are

biased toward optical network architectures, and the answers regarding MPLS need to be interpreted with

that in mind.

Exhibit 9 Protection Layersn=21, 21

33%

76%

38%

43%

52%

29%

24%

43%

48%

48%

67%

71%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

SONET /SDH based 1+1

protection

MPLS fast reroute local

protection

IP/MPLS protection scheme

OTN based 1+1 protection

Optical restoration via

ROADM

OTN shared mesh

restoration

P r o t e c t i o n L a y e r s

Percent of Respondents

2016

2013






13

OPTICAL TRANSPORT TOPOLOGY

Specifically, we wanted to understand the level of interest in mesh protection schemes, as well as what

scheme operators identify as the architecture of their existing network. We asked service providers tocharacterize their network as being primarily point to point, ring based, partial mesh, or full mesh, and we

asked respondents to select only 1 answer.

Service providers view their networks as mostly point to point or ring based today, but ideally would like to

adopt some kind of mesh-based architecture in the coming years. This is particularly true in the core, with

52% of respondents looking to move from point to point or ring-based architectures to mesh-based

approaches. The metro shows a similar transition though fiber topology typically prevents a full mesh

approach in this domain.

Overall, the results of this and the previous question show a strong desire by service providers to migrate

to some degree of mesh protection in their networks.






14

Exhibit 10 Optical Transport Topologyn=21, 21

10%

29%

0%

14%

57% 24%

52%

19% 19% 43%

5% 5%

71%

19%

29%

5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Metro 2013 Metro 2016 Core 2013 Core 2016

Transport Topology

P e r c

e n t o f R e s p o n d e n t s

Point to point Ring based Partial mesh Highly meshed






15

BENEFITS OF SHARED OPTICAL MESH PROTECTION

There are multiple benefits associated with mesh protection, and equipment vendors like to market all of

them with equal gusto. We asked respondents what they see as the most important benefit of meshprotection; we offered the 3 most common reasons: economics, resiliency, and service differentiation.

Again, these responses include the 3 service providers who do not plan to deploy OTN switching.

In short, economics wins by a wide margin: to 62% of respondents, the greatest benefit of mesh

protection is providing shared protection bandwidth for better economics and lower capex. Network

resiliency is second with 29%. Only 2 service providers said that being able to offer different service

levels based on protection quality is the top benefit.

Exhibit 11 Shared Optical Mesh Protection vs 1+1 Protectionn=21

0%

62%

29%

10%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

No advantages, 1+1

protection is a better solution

Ability to price and providedifferent levels of service

Support for multiple failure

scenarios network wide

(end-to-end vs. local only)

Shared protection

bandwidth for better

economics and

lower capex

S h a r e d O p t i c a l M e s

h P r o t e c t i o n v s 1 + 1 P r o t e c t i o n







16

Shared optical mesh protection based on OTN or optical switching competes with MPLS to some degree,

and some service providers deploy both schemes. We wanted to understand the perceived benefit of

using optical mesh protection compared with MPLS fast reroute. Again, respondents had to select only

one benefit.

Economics again rises to the top, with 38% of service providers citing this as the benefit over MPLS fast

re-route. This answer is puzzling though, since MPLS fast reroute should have equivalent benefits to

OTN, except the difference among respondents is that OTN-based mesh protection can be implemented

less expensively than MPLS-based approaches, at least today. Guaranteed 50ms response times were

the second-most popular reason at 29%, and optical meshes were perceived to support multiple

cascading failures better by 14% of respondents.

Two respondents (10%) indicated that MPLS fast reroute was superior for all of these approaches;

unsurprisingly, these were the carriers that shunned OTN switching altogether.

Exhibit 12 Shared Optical Mesh Protect ion vs MPLS Fast Rerouten=21

10%

38%

29%

14%

10%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Faster convergence

No advantages, MP LS is a

better protection mechanism

Support for multiple failure

scenarios network wide (end-

to-end vs. local only)

Guaranteed performance of

sub 50ms protection

Shared protection bandwidth

for better economics

S

h a r e d O p t i c a l M e s h P r o t e c t i o n v s

M P L S F a s t R e r o u t e







17

BOTTOM LINE

OTN switching is clearly not a niche technology, and it is apparent that in the future this feature is a

requirement for most WDM transport platforms in the metro and virtually all higher-density systems for thecore. Packet optical equipment is still a niche today at 10% of all spending, but operators would like to

make it a technology of choice by 2016. Likewise, optical mesh protections plays a minor role today in

carrier networks, but if operators get their way it will be dominant by 2016.

METHODOLOGY AND DEMOGRAPHICS

In March and April 2013, using online, telephone, and in-person survey methods, we interviewed 21

service providers, representing 34% of the world’s telecom capex. To qualify, respondent organizations

must have deployed OTN transmission or switching equipment or equipment with G.709 interfaces, or

plan to do so by the end of 2014. Respondents must have detailed knowledge of the OTN transmission

and switching equipment their companies evaluated.

Respondents Are Influential in the Purchase Decision

Respondents must have influence in the purchase decision to participate; this is a key part of our

screening process to ensure that we’re talking to knowledgeable decision-makers in the buying process.

19% of respondents to this survey are the primary decision-maker, and another 57% have a lot of

influence in the planning and purchase decisions for OTN transmission and switching equipment.

Exhibit 13 Respondents Have a Lot of Purchase Influence

n=21

A lot of

influence

57%Primary

decision-

maker

19%

Some

influence

24%






18

Respondents in this survey represent a statistically significant 34% of global capex and 31% of revenue,

as reported in our Service Provider Capex, Opex, ARPU, and Subscribers report.

Exhibit 14 Respondents Represent a Decent Portion of 2012 Worldwide Capex and Revenue

n=21, 21

34%

31%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Capex Revenue P e r c e n t o f 2 0 1 2 W o r l d w i d e

P u b l i c C a r r i e r T o t a l

Source: Infonetics Research, Service Provider Capex, Opex, and Subscribers






19

We have a good mix of incumbents (72%) and competitive carriers (14%), ranging from large incumbent

service providers to smaller fiber-based competitive carriers in North America and EMEA. Results are

skewed slightly in favor of EMEA carriers, but North American responses are a good blend of traditional

and competitive carriers. We have several responses from China, where OTN is in more advanceddeployment, and multiple responses from EMEA customers that have deployed Huawei OTN equipment.

Exhibit 15 Respondent Service Provider Types and Regional Distribut ionn=21, 21

Incumbent

72%

Competitiv e

14%

Independent

wireless

14%

CALA

10%

North

Ameri ca

19%

EMEA

52%

As ia

Pacific

19%






The respondent profile overlaps our 2011 edition of this survey; 67% of respondents from last year’s

survey also participated in this year’s survey. This year, regional representation skewed away from North

America, and competitive operators were a smaller contribution to the results.

Exhibit 16 Survey Sample 2012 vs. 2013 2012 Survey 2013 Survey

#of respondents 21 21

EMEA operators(% of respondents) 52%

52%

North America operators(% of respondents) 29%

19%

Asia Pacific operators

(% of respondents)

14% 19%

CALA operators(% of respondents)

5% 10%

Incumbents(% of respondents) 71%

72%

Competitive operators(% of respondents) 24%

14%

Independent Wirelessoperators

(% of respondents)

5% 14%

As always, I invite your feedback,

Andrew Schmitt

Directing Analyst, Optical

+1 (408) 583.3393

[email protected]

OTN MPLS Control Plane Service Provider Survey 05-01-13

Documents