 favors the former. Accord- Chapter 4 ing to Nortel, next-generation SONET works with the speeds that are out there and drives them into a single, cost-effective aggregation point. What we are seeing are these do-it-all-in-MSPP systems, but these systems are not granular, do not support higher speeds, and do not offer a smaller foot- print. According to Cisco, the two terms define the same category. Cisco claims that its ONS 15454 metro optical system qualifies as both an MSPP and next-generation SONET platform. Appian Communications highlights a subtle difference between MSPPs and next-generation SONET devices- MSPPs tend to support packet services more efficiently than next- generation SONET platforms; next-generation SONET equipment has more port density, integrated ADM, grooming, and crossconnect capabilities predominantly for TDM. According to Coriolis, MSPPs typically integrate packet switching into their platforms and can handle ATM, Ethernet, and Frame Relay circuits. Ciena's next-generation SONET box, the MetroDi- rector, integrates grooming and switching elements, and provides basic SONET/TDM functionality in a higher-density rack space while also pro- viding support for GbE and ATM.17 Therefore, it seems that only the pass- ing of time will truly define the differences between the flavors of the two evolving technologies. End Notes 1. G. Lee, "SONET: A Viable Solution to the Metro Access Network Bottleneck?" Opticalbiznet.com, June 2001. 2. For example, note this quote from J. McQuillan, Broadband Networking at the Crossroad, NGN 2001 Promotional Materials, October 11, 2001: "Another important realization in 2001 is that the anticipated opportunities for new data-centric service providers have not materialized, leading to a much slower pace of technology adoption. Probably the four biggest reasons for a slowdown in network innovation are BellSouth, SBC, Qwest, and Verizon. And the fifth reason is Telcordia. With the failure of SO many DLECs and CLECs, we have returned to a situation almost like the 198