SSP ADM in this case) is equivalent to forcing the carrier to buy also the DWDM lines from the same vendor. Mainly incumbent carriers have all the advantage in leveraging on the market com- petition among the main equipment vendors to decrease prices and they see as a strong limitation to their autonomy installing a network architecture that has to be sustained by single vendor. At the end, the advantage of having cheaper equipment would be almost surely overcompensated by the impossibility to exploit competition among suppliers to have lower prices. Besides the considerations related to the market price dynamic, in the case of MSTP equipment, more technical consideration seems to indicate that the supposed MSTP inte- gration advantage could be not present in practice. Different from OXCs, MSSP equipment is generally quite compact. In the OXC case, the switch fabric was SO huge that DWDM interfaces, even if integrated from a control point of view into the same equipment, were for sure destined to have their own sub-rack specifically designed for DWDM. In the MSTP case if the equipment has to be compact, DWDM cards like transponders and amplifiers are generally hosted in the same sub-rack designed for the ADM switch fabric. Thus, the cost of platform related to the DWDM cards is much higher than those correspondent to the installation into a platform designed for DWDM. In some sense, it can be asserted that "precious" space from a switching platform is wasted to accommodate cards that do not need it. This factor critically depends on the design of the platform, on the difference between a proprietary and a standard platform, and SO on. Last, but not least, another type on next generation ADM has emerged in recent years the MSSP to denote large MSPP systems, which have switching and grooming capacity of at least 300 Gbit/s. One noticeable difference is that most MSSPs do not provide granular- ity down to the DS1 level, and many of them are actually pure optical systems in terms of available interface units. Even if