Slashdot Mirror


Is Hyperchip Hype?

Peter Galbraith writes "There was an interview on CBC (here in Canada) last evening about Hyperchip, a Montreal-based company that are working on a new type of router that would scale up 1000 times in traffic (so wouldn't be obsolete in less than a year) and would pass packets to their destination in a few hops instead of a dozen or more. Any experts out there think it's hype? Or real?" The explanation on Hyperchip's "technology" page is pretty thin, but considering they just raised $70 million, I hope they've given more convincing details to their investors.

185 comments

  1. Hyoerchip by FigBug · · Score: 2, Funny

    With a name like HyperChip its got to be a hoax. I it was real it would have a name like RXE-8635P

    1. Re:Hyoerchip by lukecs · · Score: 1

      I dunno they have a flash opening to their site. That must make it real. Canadians are known for their innovative names. Like the Canadian dollar and two dollar piece, the Looney and Tooney respectively.

    2. Re:Hyoerchip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, and USA is so much more creative, especially when it comes to company names: Just stick the word "American" in front of the type of product you are selling, and "Inc." after it!

    3. Re:Hyoerchip by Kalabajoui · · Score: 1

      What about that washing machine company...uh, what's their name? Ah yes! 'Agilent'; now that's a pretty catchy and creative name for an American company.

    4. Re:Hyoerchip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like American Standard, makers of toilets.

    5. Re:Hyoerchip by __aaaaxm1522 · · Score: 2

      Don't judge it by it's name alone. French Canadian companies often choose interesting names. For example: OEone (based in Hull, Quebec... makers of a Linux based internet appliance that was reviewed on Slashdot awhile ago)... and can't forget Newlix - well, maybe you can. They went under last year, but were making a linux distro targetted towards small and medium sized businesses (Firewall, email, filesharing, etc).

    6. Re:Hyoerchip by spauldo · · Score: 1
      Naw, sun had the supersparc, and another company made generic sparc chips called hypersparcs.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
  2. OT Slashdot rant by FigBug · · Score: 0

    I think slashdot is broken, my karma is 5 and i post at -1. Whats the deal with that?

  3. Step One: by Saint+Aardvark · · Score: 5, Funny
    Step One: Tell everyone you have an amazing new router.
    Step Two:
    Step Three: Profits!

    1. Re:Step One: by ekrout · · Score: 4, Funny

      Step Two: Sign-up for a user account at the ultimate geek site and post a story about Step One.

      ;-)

      --

      If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
    2. Re:Step One: by drsoran · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Step Two: Manufacture and market amazing new router.

      That wasn't that hard now was it?

    3. Re:Step One: by Saint+Aardvark · · Score: 2, Funny
      I'm afraid ekrout knows too much. He has become...expendable.

      Get him, my robots!

    4. Re:Step One: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess I'm the only one that got the Southpark underpants gnome reference :-)

    5. Re:Step One: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It was a reference to an episode of Southpark. The Underpants Gnomes were stealing underpants because underpants were big business. Step One is stealing underpants, Step Three is profit, but Step Two was blank. It was a lot funnier when it was seen on TV and not explained on slashdot.

    6. Re:Step One: by Jose · · Score: 2

      uhhh...it was done on Kids in the Hall way before it was done on South Park..may have been done before Kids as well...

      --
      The basic sleazeware produced in a drunken fury by a bunch of UCBerkeley grad students was still the core of BIND. --PV
    7. Re:Step One: by ThatComputerGuy · · Score: 1

      Any chance these robots are powered by HyperChips?

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  4. details by vinnythenose · · Score: 1, Funny

    Maybe details are sparse because they're getting it from the future and they still need to build the time machine...

    --
    --- I used to moderate, then I read the -1 articles and decided having to filter through them was not worth it.
  5. Tang. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    No, no. They should have tacked on some more names.

    Hyper
    Compu
    Global
    Ultra
    Turbo
    2002

    Now all it needs is some sort of advertising-catchy slogan-type thing.

    IBM Guy: Let the UltraGlobalDominatorChip2002 Allow your business to stomp down on the little guy.
    Duffman: Oh yeah!

    1. Re:Tang. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about HyperXPChip?

    2. Re:Tang. by eplese · · Score: 1

      Don't forget XP too.

  6. Re:Hyperchip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    naw, THX-1138 sounds *much* more realistic

  7. Funny Coincidence by Zenithal · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm here in Montreal, and I applied to go work for them not even a week ago.

    I was inadequate :)

    If they can figure that out, they probably have a chance.

    --


    Aaron
    AaronCameron.net
    1. Re:Funny Coincidence by Pooh · · Score: 1

      You applied for what?

      Last year they hired almost anybody...

    2. Re:Funny Coincidence by Zenithal · · Score: 1

      Oh, yeah, thanks. That really makes me feel way better.

      I don't even remember the exact description. I have applied to a _lot_ of jobs in the last week or so.

      --


      Aaron
      AaronCameron.net
    3. Re:Funny Coincidence by Pooh · · Score: 1

      If you don't remember for what you applied for, maybe that's why you're inadequate :)

    4. Re:Funny Coincidence by I.T.R.A.R.K. · · Score: 0, Troll

      If you're French, there's a 99.5% chance you are inadequate.

      --

      "Adequacy.org: Where congenital stupidity is not an option, but a requirement."

    5. Re:Funny Coincidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      N'est ce pas mon ami! Au contraire! Or something.

      If they are french you are 99.5% certainly inadequate!

    6. Re:Funny Coincidence by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2



      "I'm here in Montreal, and I applied to go work for them not even a week ago."

      "I was inadequate :)"

      "If they can figure that out, they probably have a chance."


      Are you telling us that your girlfriend may successfully develop a new technology, or that the companies board of directors should call you for a good time???

      8^}

      Cheers and minor jeers!


      Zero__Kelvin

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  8. Those were the days... by Gerald · · Score: 2, Funny
    "With the conservative estimates of the Internet usage doubling every six months, the need for bandwidth at the core of the Internet is outpacing the ability of the conventional router technology to keep up."

    Am I the only one, or did this make anyone else nostalgic for the mid-90s?

    1. Re:Those were the days... by FlowerPotAdmin · · Score: 1

      What? When dial-up reigned? No nostalgia here.

      --
      -Justin
      That's enough posting for now lads, there're trolls afoot.
    2. Re:Those were the days... by Raindeer · · Score: 2
      Maybe you should look at the statistics of the Londen Internet Exchange. They still seem to exhibit growth :-) FYI LINX is the larges Internet Exchange Point of Europe and carries more then 13Gb per second on a daily basis at the moment. This was 4Gbit at the start of the year. You can find their traffic stats here

  9. Re:Sun is Fucked [OT] by AnalogBoy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This would have been better suited for the Gnome thread; but its offtopic, nonetheless..

    But still, sun is far from fucked - The aftermarket Sun Enterprise systems are selling like hotcakes from 3rd parties - This is bad for sun, but not -all- bad. You buy that 5500? You need support for it. If you get support from Sun, you get to pay an additional premium since you didnt buy it from them or a sun VAR.

    Sales of the USIII line are now above the USII line. Sun expects to be in the black by the end of 2q.

    Hit Bill Bradfords great site for more details: sunhelp.org

  10. Re:Sun is Fucked by strAtEdgE · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Hrm, blatantly offtopic posts to Slashdot threads to try and drive a stock down.... interesting.

    --
    ----- sXe
  11. Re:well they are Canadian by lukecs · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    hey I'm an engineering. we've figured out lots of things 1. Beer 2. Sleeping with your eyes open in class 3. Nursing Students

  12. Hyperchip by yoink! · · Score: 4, Informative

    I was at a Pub one evening (I live in Montreal) and I happened to meet their sales manager... ms. Jen Goldfinch. Although I had seen the Hyperchip building on many occasions, I had never inquired as to what they do. After meeting this woman, I was given the impression that their routers are actually in use by some of the big players in the digital pipelines game. She was actually pretty clear on that, although I can't seem to find any exact information concerning their customers on their website. Perhaps some questions to nortel, and qwest folks might clear this up. The only thing that make me dubious about her claim of widespread adoption, would be that if their products are so much "better" (for the lack of a better word) than the competitions, then why is abilene using cisco products? Unfortunately I don't have that kind of time on my hands.

    1. Re:Hyperchip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One possible reason abilene uses cisco instead of this guys could that abilene doesn't require port density hyperchip can provide (and therefore it is more expensive than cisco)

    2. Re:Hyperchip by bokmann · · Score: 2, Interesting
      A Sales Manager told that to you in a bar??? Well then it's GOT to be true.

      After all, I've never known sales people OR barflys to exaggerate at all.

    3. Re:Hyperchip by ekrout · · Score: 1

      I know that Cisco gives good deals to many places (my University is one of them, I believe...we may have even gotten the hardware at very low cost).

      --

      If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
    4. Re:Hyperchip by wo1verin3 · · Score: 1

      Please, if they use THX as a chipname they'll get sued by Lucas harder then Star Ballz.

    5. Re:Hyperchip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      alllooksame.com

    6. Re:Hyperchip by statusbar · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Was she cute? Did she have a boyfriend there at the bar?

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    7. Re:Hyperchip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, I bet everyone got 14 wrong: those are real!!!

    8. Re:Hyperchip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your "penis" has a jack, it's most likely a "vagina", not a "penis".

    9. Re:Hyperchip by Raindeer · · Score: 2
      The only thing that make me dubious about her claim of widespread adoption, would be that if their products are so much "better" (for the lack of a better word) than the competitions, then why is abilene [internet2.edu] using cisco products? Unfortunately I don't have that kind of time on my hands.

      The reason for this is that Cisco has long-standing excellent relations with the academic community, even though sometimes their technology is crap. (Cisco 12000 with 3 (or was it 4) GigE ports come to mind) These relationships, together with the sheer mass and therefore possibilities to finance research is the reason they own the Research and Education market and a more technologically sound company like Juniper doesn't.

    10. Re:Hyperchip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems that many of the telecom designs are now attempting to resolve the growth issues via one of two ways. (1) Attack the problem from a routing problem, getting traffic to remain "out there" for shorter times or (2) trying to increase bandwidth by more efficiently using the available lines.

      I think the most interesting thing will be how this type of solution (which I classify as #1 approach) as opposed to someone like Caspian Networks (a #2 approach founded by Larry Roberts).

    11. Re:Hyperchip by renehollan · · Score: 2
      Disclaimer: I work for Chiaro, a potential competitor of Hyperchip.

      I recently heard from a public source that they raised $40 million (prolly US$, given the $70 million figure quoted - prolly C$), with $30 coming from government loan guarantees.

      Many next-generation router companies have fallen on hard times, with some closing up shop, in this tech-recession. Hyperchip and Chiaro are the few still standing.

      Obviously, I'd like to say more, but since I work for a potential competitor, I can not.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    12. Re:Hyperchip by jonearth · · Score: 1

      You meet a woman in a pub and ask her how their router works? geeek..

    13. Re:Hyperchip by clarabelle · · Score: 1

      yoink! your web site is down.. i wanted to contact you offline.. any way to contact you?

    14. Re:Hyperchip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey, thanks! Should have hit preview before posting, duh...

  13. Not on CBC web site by lukecs · · Score: 1

    Kind of odd they have nothing on their web site about a Hyperchip. www.cbc.ca

    1. Re:Not on CBC web site by hidden · · Score: 1

      cbc news, and a few of their programs put every detail of what they do on the website. All the rest of the programs don't. So all that really means is that this interview was on one of the MANY programs that don't

      not really very "interesting" at all.

  14. industry comparison by jaavaaguru · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It looks a bit like the PC processor industry - they're pushing the technology to its limits just so that they can claim they're the fastest. What happens when the bandwidth requirements have also scaled 1000 times? There are no overclocking options here folks! On a lighter side - If I had one of thouse routers I might be able to load all those images and flash a bit faster :-)

  15. Hopcount != Speed by cwsnate · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Simple hop count does translate directly into speed. A two hop route plagued with slow nodes might be (and often is) slower than a route that consists of more hops with faster nodes. Sounds like ignorant marketing hype.

    1. Re:Hopcount != Speed by cwsnate · · Score: 1

      Oooops... Should have said "hop count does NOT" instead of "hop count does". My bad.

    2. Re:Hopcount != Speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't immediately discount the number of hops factor as "ignorant marketing hype". Of course a pitiful connection between any two routers will slow things down, but given all else equal, LESS HOPS IS BETTER.

    3. Re:Hopcount != Speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It is true; that's why link state routing protocols like OSPF take the speed of the link into account.

      What hyperchip gyus did is they build *non-blocking* switch that can scale to 64000 ports and allows to use a variety of OC interfaces. This way instead of using multiple smaller switches to interconnect the same amount of ports (take into account that the links between the switches will be a bottleneck in this architecture) one can use just one switch from hyperchip, which is probably capable of wire-speed switching (otherwise it doesn't have to be non-blocking).

      The backplane of this switch seems to be quite fast; so by using it 1) the number of hops gets less; 2)the latency is cut; 3)the space in the NOC is saved.

      Could be quite interesting for big guys.

    4. Re:Hopcount != Speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple hop count does translate directly into speed. A two hop route plagued with slow nodes might be (and often is) slower than a route that consists of more hops with faster nodes.

      No, but it CAN (and frequently does) indicate lower latency. The fewer pieces of equipment that a packet has to pass through, the lower the latency.

  16. Other vendors that come close? by scubacuda · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Cisco and Juniper can only (currently) route in gigabit speeds.

    Other competitors that they will have to deal with: Pluris, IronBridge Networks and Charlotte's Web Networks .

    1. Re:Other vendors that come close? by Katan · · Score: 1

      Ironbridge went out of business last year. There is one less router for them to deal with. They were backed by VC money from Newbridge, but when Alcatel bought Newbridge it all dried up.

      --
      K
    2. Re:Other vendors that come close? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The new Juniper codename Gibson routers can handle OC-768

      According to Hyperchip's website the only product I could find does OC-192.

      Cisco & Juniper already both do OC-192 at line speed and have for quite awhile.

      Juniper's new Gibson's should be out anytime now.

    3. Re:Other vendors that come close? by chill · · Score: 2

      Lucent already has several Wavestar 400G/800G units deployed (400 Gbit/800 Gbit) as well as a few Lambda Routers (all optical) capable of 1.6 Tb routing.

      In the field, running. Their Optical Network Group training facility is in Orlando, FL and I have gotten to play with some of these units. Very nice.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    4. Re:Other vendors that come close? by cmkrnl · · Score: 1

      Charlotte's Web Networks

      With that FQDN, thank the Lord no one has renamed the company Charlotte's Uniform Networks.

      Curmudgeon

  17. Use Existing Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Troll

    Cisco has had the technology to do their so called 'smart routing' for years. It's called BGP. I have seen it intelligently route packets across the country that only goes across 2, maybe 3 routers. It seems in this "dot-com" era of techies, no one has a clue about routing. There are so very few people who know what to do with a router, and obviously those people aren't working for any commercial ISPs. I used to work networking for the government, and one of our customers had a problem with routing through UUnet. I contacted their router dept and talked to one of their so-called "router engineers" and had to explain to him how to fix an assymetrical route.

    Do a traceroute to yahoo.com. Conceivably, you shouldn't have to go more than 5 hops. But with every major corporation creating a string of routers rather than a mesh.... it takes for ever to get there.

    1. Re:Use Existing Technology by Bookwyrm · · Score: 2

      That is because there are people out there who believe that the network should be 'dumb' with all the intelligence in the edges. This class of people rarely understand that the network needs intelligence to do its job well.

    2. Re:Use Existing Technology by Dave+Goldblatt · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why do you care what the number of hops is? When you can do line-rate forwarding of packets (as most modern switch/routers can), it's irrelevant. Just because your traceroute shows "2, maybe 3 routers" doesn't mean that's all it's traversing (could be going through a LSP); in fact, I'll put money that you can't show me a trace across the country between two endstations that doesn't go over at least 4-6 routers.

      BGP is not a Cisco protocol, it's an IETF draft standard (see RFC 1771); every router worth its salt for the last 7-10 years has supported it.

      Also, asymmetrical routes are not necessarily bad; there's load-balancing, administrative weighting...

    3. Re:Use Existing Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are right, hop count is irrelevent. There is the layer 2 routing/switching that is occuring that is transparent to the layer 3 traceroute... however it is plain simple logic to mesh your routers with existing backbone routers to create not only failsafe redundancy, but also to create the shortest possible distance between host a and host b.

      Assymetrical routes can be very much a problem when dealing in the field of security. My firewall immediately denies any assymetrical route. Reason: tcp/ip hijacking. I want my session with a remote host to stay MY session, if someone else along a different route tries to hijack that session, the firewall denies them. Of course, someone along the same route still has a chance, but that's where a smarter tcp stack comes to play. Networking was my old job, security is my new job.

      You corrected me about BGP, I have only worked with Cisco routers, and a few foundries. All the knowledge I have gained about routing was all obtained working directly with cisco routers. I feel I have a pretty strong grasp, but of course there's always so many that know so much more.

    4. Re:Use Existing Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Riiiiight!

      $ traceroute www.yahoo.com
      traceroute to www.yahoo.akadns.net (64.58.76.176), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
      1 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1) 2.262 ms 1.835 ms 1.756 ms
      2 10.85.19.1 (10.85.19.1) 11.871 ms 17.667 ms 14.250 ms
      3 12.244.112.1 (12.244.112.1) 11.878 ms 12.125 ms 9.976 ms
      4 12.244.69.1 (12.244.69.1) 12.26 ms 12.91 ms 12.923 ms
      5 12.244.73.6 (12.244.73.6) 11.522 ms 13.70 ms 12.483 ms
      6 gbr5-p30.dlstx.ip.att.net (12.123.17.50) 14.280 ms 12.134 ms 12.481 ms
      7 gbr3-p100.dlstx.ip.att.net (12.122.5.74) 12.960 ms 12.595 ms 12.244 ms
      8 ggr1-p360.dlstx.ip.att.net (12.123.16.241) 11.219 ms 12.446 ms 12.102 ms
      9 ibr01-p0-3.ftwo01.exodus.net (209.185.249.177) 15.87 ms 14.31 ms 12.805 m
      s
      10 bbr02-g2-0.ftwo01.exodus.net (216.39.64.2) 12.992 ms 15.267 ms 13.801 ms
      11 bbr02-p1-0.atln01.exodus.net (206.79.9.189) 36.815 ms 37.824 ms 51.822 ms
      12 bbr01-g2-0.atln01.exodus.net (216.35.162.3) 32.499 ms 38.227 ms 29.744 ms
      13 bbr01-p6-0.hrnd01.exodus.net (206.79.9.50) 46.73 ms 46.533 ms 48.771 ms
      14 bbr02-p6-0.stng01.exodus.net (209.185.249.137) 45.916 ms 50.740 ms 47.396
      ms
      15 dcr03-g10-0.stng01.exodus.net (216.33.96.161) 45.411 ms 43.847 ms 44.591
      ms
      16 csr22-ve243.stng01.exodus.net (216.33.98.26) 47.223 ms 47.222 ms 99.801 m
      s
      17 216.35.210.126 (216.35.210.126) 48.119 ms 48.488 ms 92.928 ms
      18 www7.dcx.yahoo.com (64.58.76.176) 47.210 ms 46.161 ms 47.132 ms

      What a waste....

    5. Re:Use Existing Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      When you can do line-rate forwarding of packets (as most modern switch/routers can),

      It's been a while, so it might wrong, but... supposing line-rate meaning synchronized ie. not having to wait for the whole packet to arrive, is that really the case? I thought packets usually HAVE to be completely received, to do checksum checks (for IP it's only the header I know) to, and that adds latency, relative to the bandwidth of the incoming pipe (faster pipe, smaller latency). Or are current switches smarter in this respect than the older ones?

    6. Re:Use Existing Technology by juuri · · Score: 3, Informative

      Open foot, insert mouth.

      CISCO actually preaches in their advanced networking design (one of the things needed to get a CCIE) that all intelligence should be moved outside the core. The core exists only to switch they scream time and time again. They are right.

      Examing packets is damn expensive, you don't want that in your core layer at all. You want it moved out as far as possible to move the possible bottleneck as far towards the end user as possible. A well designed network does its job well without having any fricken idea whats going on other at any high levels.

      Conversely the upside of this belief for vendors is it helps to sell more equipment since you need more layers to properly shield the core from having to examing the packets.

      --
      --- I do not moderate.
    7. Re:Use Existing Technology by Phasedshift · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Couple of things...

      1. 90% of the time when you call a large internet service provider, you speak to their frontline support, who address their level 2 support (etc) as 'routing engineers', consider how many people must call them and complain about problems (90% of which are probably caused by stupid things like them advertising a /24 in class B space, without advertising the /16 also, so the route gets nuked at a border router, as quite a few providers filter based on classfull boundries, or people just not understanding how a traceroute even works, and demanding to speak to a 'routing guru' because their traceroute dies after a certain point due to an ACL (access control list), so they naturally think the web server/mail server, etc they are going too is down, even though it is not.).

      2. As someone pointed out, number of hops != latency, etc. Most people who are just starting their quest for knowledge in this field tend to confuse the two unfortunately.

      Now, while in an ideal network, 99% of things will be done at layer 2, thereby making the total hopcount in your traceroute lower (if your traffic is going through an ATM switch who doesn't know about/care about layer 3 information in an ATM cell, it will obviously not show up as a hop in your trace). The hopcount your traceroute shows doesn't matter, the simple fact that all that has to be done is the header of the ATM cell (the first 5 bytes) is read, and then the cell is forwarded to its proper destination (similar for ethernet, using cut-through switching, etc) doing switching at layer 2, vs. having to read the IP packet's headers to find the destination will provide a noticible decrease in latency in most situations.

      You are however correct in that Cisco has many features out there that will greatly increase performance for people. Mind you, there aren't any official 3rd party benchmarks against this (the company the article is referring too) company's products, so we don't know if they are something to laugh at, or really are better then whats out there currently (although I am voting for the laughing part).

      Also, in regards to BGP, (heh btw it has quite a bit of overhead, since it uses TCP), while it is pretty much the only good choice for an EGP (external gateway protocol), you will still need an IGP such as OSPF, etc unless you intend to have your router(s) have BGP sessions with the IP's of other routers known via directly connected (or static routes), which would be stupid (except for some situations using static routes in a very small network). Its not like you setup a BGP session with another router, and it 'magically' works, there is quite a bit of traffic engineering involved (how much is dependent on how big your network is), and cooperation among internet service providers (i.e. to set the localpref that is distributed to your IBGP mesh based on certain communities received from a peer, or the other way around, so people can control the path traffic goes back into their network in a better way then padding the route (i.e. adding more AS's to the AS_PATH which chances are wont give you the desired results), or other methods).

    8. Re:Use Existing Technology by shani · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like all of those not-understanding people who actually designed and built the Internet. The class of people that make up the IETF.

      RFC2775 pretty much covers this.

    9. Re:Use Existing Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone mod this up, this guy knows what he's speaking about.

      AS12882

    10. Re:Use Existing Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously dont' have a clue about what you are talking about, I mean that do you have any idea what is BGP-4 and what do you do with it.

    11. Re:Use Existing Technology by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      I don't blame them - you know there's like 10 different ways to do each and every task on most routers.

      Not to mention the documentation for these products is rather confusing.

    12. Re:Use Existing Technology by Nethead · · Score: 2, Interesting

      BGP isn't really that smart. That's why I make good bucks making it look smart (traffic/load balancing). Asymetric routes aren't a problem really, I don't know why you'd worry about them. The internet and BGP was designed to do that. And I'll take one of UU's "so called" router engineers any day over a government hack.. I'm sure _you_ didn't talk to a real NOC person. And about your string vs mesh fetish: I guess you don't really understand how real world economics plays a part in network design. A non-congested router doesn't add more that 2ms to the path. You're like the guy that wants a non-stop freeway from your house to every desination in the world. Sorry , it ain't goint to happen. If you think that you have a better way to run the net, come to a NANOG meeting and give your ideas a try.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    13. Re:Use Existing Technology by Bookwyrm · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Anonymous Coward wrote:

      Building it is one thing. Making it run efficiently is something else altogether. Perhaps that takes a class of people even smarter than the builders?


      That is what I was referring to in my comment in a sense. Anyone can build chaos, diversity -- a jungle. Anyone can say "We will make the edges smart and the core dumb!", but the doing is another matter. Such a construction is not efficient, though. History tends to indicate that farming has won out over jungles, that civilization over barbarians, corporations over small buisinesses.

      As the demands placed on the network become more stringent in terms of QoS, costs, efficiency -- once the network becomes no longer cutting edge, but boring old infrastructure, it will become ordered and managed to increase efficiency at the cost of diversity. Every frontier is eventually settled because it uses resources more efficiently that way.

      Pretending that the core network does not need intelligence allows people to pretend that they can do whatever they want, drop whatever packets they want into the system, and have it work. (In the slightly higher application level, people learned that they could send SPAM to everyone else easily.) The issue is that this is slowly creating an hostile relationship with the core network. Issues with having ports blocked to prevent people from running servers on their connections are symptomatic of this -- the edge and the core are conflicting over what is allowed. (Hint: the core wins unless the edge pays at least the cost of the actual bandwidth used. The core can always cut the connection. If the edges do not cover the costs of the bandwidth, the core goes out of business, and everyone loses (you know, like all those DSL providers...))

      Barbarians who have stood at the edges and shouted and screamed that they do not need civilization have always been pushed back by the expansion of civilization. The edges will have to be come civilized and deal with the core network in a civilized fashion, not just run rampant through it -- the core is alread setting up walls and gates on the edges to stop the barbarians: filtering out spoofed source addresses, NAT, firewalls, port blocking, monitors, sniffers, etc. Because the core network is denied any useful information/intelligence about services to make optimizations, because it has to handle *anything*, which is inefficient/expensive, the core network is , unsurprizingly, becoming dumb -- and, surprise, dumb things do not do well in performing a variety of services efficiently, the services and traffic have to be simple and uniform to be handled efficiently by a dumb box. So, the traffic and services are *made* simple -- no web servers for you, bud! We'll forcibly shape your traffic patterns until they are more simple and efficient for us, 'cause we're only a bunch of dumb core guys, right? We can't do anything complex! Why, yes, tech support really is staffed by low-grade morons -- the network is pretty dumb and simple, you know, doesn't take any brains to run!

      Ultimately, the barbarians will have to become civilized, the only question is on whose terms, or find a new frontier. If the barbarians are going to want good terms, they are going to have to treat the core with respect -- they will have to have intelligence in the core to communicate with it. For QoS, etc., the edges will have to be able to tell the core what they want, and the core will have to have the intelligence to see if it can manage it, and arrange for the service. And the barbarians better negotiate while they still have power -- if they all get crowded into little reservations of network places with unfiltered services and become a tiny part of the market first without any bargaining power, well...

      If the only communication/negotiation between the edge to the core is "Route packet! Route packet! Route packet!" The only reponse the core can have is "Yes" or "No". Allowing for more intelligent negotiation of service allows for compromises and more flexibility. The core can *always* say no.

      Murphy's Golden Rule: Those who have the gold make the rules.

      Possession is 9/10ths of the law.

      As long as we need core networks, routers, interconnect points, etc. those who own them will ultimately have the power to make the rules. And they aren't owned by the IETF, and they aren't owned by the edges.
  18. Re:well they are Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I don't have to say anything. Your borderline illiteracy seems to indicate a US citizenship and, in such a case, one of your "free" fellow citizens will stumble along and shoot you before too long anyway. Hopefully he can squint through a haze of crap American beer well enough to get you between the eyes (aiming just south of the NASCAR logo on your hat should be almost perfect).

  19. Re:Moderators are USELESS! by lukecs · · Score: 0

    Plus when you are looking at the forum for more information and you get post like "Sun is Fucked" it kinda boggs down the conversation with information that is not relevant.

  20. Could be... by Atomic+Frog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We had a project that was probably similar in concept, maybe slightly lower throughput. I don't think the claims are that far fetched.

    However, getting one chip working is one thing. Getting an entire box is a whole 'nother trick entirely, as I'm sure they will discover.

    They are, obviously short on technical details, but I find no particular reason to disbelieve them. There are a lot of "real" tech companies in Montreal (my ex-company had a branch there), and fewer fakes than other places.

    $70million won't last you very long without any other source of revenue. If they are lucky and really, really good, they may have a product out in production in 2-3 years.

  21. The terabit market flopped, so go faster! by Dave+Goldblatt · · Score: 3, Interesting
    This is a company on its fourth round of financing ($220M CDN invested to date), with no announced customers - or even beta trials.. and they've been around since 1997?

    Another thing is that article is misleading; they really received $12M in funding, and added another $31M in repayable loans from the Canadian government. Again, the numbers quoted in the article are Canadian dollars, not US.

    Several terabit router companies have failed (such as Ironbridge ) and others are having problems, a la Avici along with Nexabit.

    For more entertainment, read the article and comments in Light Reading.

    It's not the bandwidth, it's the services. Besides, who can afford to provision 65,000 OC-192s?

    1. Re:The terabit market flopped, so go faster! by dprice · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not the bandwidth, it's the services. Besides, who can afford to provision 65,000 OC-192s?

      Of course 65,000 OC-192's is an architectural scalability limit. It makes great marketing material.

      The terabit router market reminds me of the supercomputer market in the late 1980's. There were a bunch of startups working with bleeding-edge technology to make the fastest machines for a handful of customers who could afford it. Many of the startups died as the actual machines came to market. There were only so many customers that could afford and would use such machines at that time.

      One of the main things that differentiated the supercomputer survivors from the casualties was the ability to provide a total hardware, software, and support solution to the customers. For the terabit router market, look for the companies delivering the full solution to the customers. Like you said, it's the services. From what I know of Hyperchip, they started with a chip idea for a scalable fabric, and until recently they didn't have much software and services capability.

      Also watch for the companies with the least hype. It seems that many of the terabit router companies that have died or are dying have been full of promises that they couldn't deliver. Caspian was one of those hyped companies, and they aren't doing well recently. The smart companies will keep quiet until they have something real, so the company that delivers the best terabit router might be one most people have not heard of.

      The LightReading link that you gave is a good place to check out what people in the optical networking industry have to say. The noise level can be high on the message boards (not unlike Slashdot), but there are some individuals that have great insight into the terabit router market. One such inidividual goes by the message board name of "skeptic".

    2. Re:The terabit market flopped, so go faster! by chill · · Score: 2

      Just FYI: Nexabit was purchased by Lucent. Their technology is being incorporated in Lucent's new TMX-880 MPLS switch.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    3. Re:The terabit market flopped, so go faster! by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2

      Maybe the Top Secret REAL Business Plan(tm) says "Be aquired by Cisco."

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  22. Hyperchip Technology FAQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    http://www.hyperchip.com/technology_faq.html
    Maybe contact IBM and see if they've been working with HyperChip as per this FAQ.

    1. Re:Hyperchip Technology FAQ by perky · · Score: 2, Insightful
      --
      "The new wave is not value-added; it's garbage-subtracted" - Esther Dyson, Dec 1994
  23. patents by Syre · · Score: 4, Informative

    they claim to have 41 patents issued... I found 3:


    I/O and memory bus system for DFPS and units with two or multi-dimensional programmable cell architectures

    Efficient direct replacement cell fault tolerant architecture

    Fault tolerant data processing system fabricated on a monolithic substrate

    From these it appears they are fabricating wafers with lots of semi-independent processing nodes, which are tolerant of failures of some of the nodes (and can therefore take into account chip production glitches on part of the wafer).

    This could give them a potentially large performance advantage, if they can do it right.

    1. Re:patents by dadragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It could be that they have 41 patents in Canada. The USPTO is not the only patent office in the world.

      --
      God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
    2. Re:patents by stephanruby · · Score: 1
      Yahoo: 278 patents

      Hyperchip: 2 patents, not 3.

      Stephan
      PS1: I'm not counting the first patent because it contains the word hyperchip but the owner does not seem to be affiliated with Hyperchip.
      PS2: I know the number of patents doesn't define the worth of a company, but then again Hyperchip doesn't seem to think so.
      PS3: Actually, I take back everything I said!!! A company with a flash web site SIMPLY HAS TO BE cutting-edge. Where do I sign up!

    3. Re:patents by stephanruby · · Score: 1
      Canadian Patent Office

      Hyperchip: 1 Canadian patent (actually it says there it was filed in the US ;-)

      That patent has 30 claims. Is that what they mean when they say they have 40 patents? Are they also counting "patent pending" applications? Or what? Can someone email the company so they can defend their claims. Please do copy us on it. It would be interesting to know how reliable those patent databases really are.

      Stephan

    4. Re:patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoever has ever talk to Hyperchip founder, Richard Norman, can testify that this stuff is anything but hype. In a prior life at IBM SemiConductor, Norman has receive the Innovation of the Year award (or somethig like this) once or twice.

      If I understand well the "Hyperchip" name come from the fact that the "semi-independent processing nodes" you described are actually hyper-connected (in more than 3 dimensions) between each other, somewhat in the way RAND envisionned the Internet before the Internet.

      That provides a lot of interesting properties for networking equipment :-)

  24. Re:well they are Canadian by DaveyJ · · Score: 1

    Posted by an anonymous coward none-the-less... Go figure!

  25. More info by Alien54 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    There is Investor analysis here, with a power point presentation

    They also have an EETimes story Archived and there is this news item from before the dot-com boom went bust.

    Other items include this bit saying we don't need petabit routing anyhow (just wait a few years!). I also spotted this job description from some namesless company.

    System Engineering Manager As the System Engineering Manager, you will be responsible for the Petabit/Terabit router prototype system development using the state of the art switch fabrics. You will lead the system design team to perform OC-768, OC-192, OC-48 linecard design, and multi-Terabit switch plane design. Requirements include a BSEE plus 7 years chip design experience or MSEE plus 5 years design experience in router system and high speed board design. Networking and Gigabit line card experience is preferred.
    Basically, this job description says to me, "You will invent the products we need so that we can make lots of bucks off your brains". One of those things, go in with eyes open.
    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:More info by Saturn49 · · Score: 1

      This could be advertised just as a requirement to fufill some non-US-citizen law. I know at my previous company, they had to post a job description for our head software developer since the person actually in the position was here on a visa or some such thing. I guess the idea is, if the company would find an equally or better qualified person that doesn't need a visa, they should fire the visa holder and hire the person applying.

      So I'm going to guess they already have a "System Engineering Manager", but have to post the job description (and take applications for it) for legal reasons.

      I'm sure someone more familiar with the system can provide more details than I.

    2. Re:More info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would a Canadian company care if the person was not a US citizen?

  26. PBR-1280 is there name for !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    their router is called pbr-1280 is it must be real :)

    1. Re:PBR-1280 is there name for !!! by yomegaman · · Score: 1

      I'm going to wait until the next-generation PBR-ME-ASAP is released before making a purchase.

      --
      ...wearing a skin-tight topless leather jumpsuit, with cutaway buttocks and transparent crotch panel.
  27. Re:well they are Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Yeah, you're right -- I'm hiding behind anonymity. Please post your full address, DaveyJ, and we'll discuss this in person.

    No? How... odd.

  28. FYI by whois · · Score: 1

    The internet stopped doubling in speed sometime last year. Everyone was banking on having OC48's to large customers (and OC3's to everyone else). One year later and most people are still using NxT1 options, and the core isn't anywhere near overutilized (not anywhere near 10gig. Or 30 gig for that matter, which you can get by running multiple OC-192s in parallel)

    So their product is worth about as much as their nearest competitor (Juniper, if they've written their software properly) and they're two years late to the market.

    1. Re:FYI by lposeidon · · Score: 0

      they are up to oc256. last i bothered to check. the technology does double. but wether or not it gets implemented is a whole different world.

      --
      Lizard "Never let them set limits on your mind!"
    2. Re:FYI by fferreres · · Score: 1

      Wrong view but valid point. Example...

      1) You probably don't need a 2 ghz computer, but you just can't sell 1 ghz one either anymore.
      2) Given mostly everyone will have 2 ghz computers (in say 2 years) numerous services will assume you have that speed.

      This is no diffent. The supply (of cheap client bandwidth) creates the demand (for server bandwidth).

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
  29. The market will catch up with them by Pussy+Is+Money · · Score: 1
    Seriously, when was the last time that any useful technology, let alone a technological breakthrough, came to the market in this fashion, I mean out of nothing, raising money like there is no tomorrow, and a name like "HyperChip".

    This goes squarely into the category of "Ginger" (the human transporter), Exponential (high speed PPC chips) and the Sinclair C5 solar car. Funds to "Commercialize [their] Carrier-class Super Core Router"? So when do they expect to hit the market? And where will the market be at that time?

    Not that it's a bad idea to do something like this. Undoubtably a lot of value is being created in a company like HyperChip. But it's not like they hold the key to a better Internet -- the market will catch up with them even if (and that is a big if) their 1000x figure holds up in the real world.

    --
    Pushin' 'n dealin', shovin' 'n stealin'
  30. Same thing, other side of the border by nsample · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The same thing is happening on this side of the border. LaurelNetworks is another super-startup company, with a lot of capital, with their guns aimed at the "big boys" of network hardware (Cisco, Juniper, etc.). I did some work with Laurel, and even some work with a micro-startup networking company, BlueWave Networks.

    I don't think that there's any hoaxing at all going on here. They're legitimate players with some heavy capital backing them. They also have great engineers and some good technology. It may not be enough, however. What it's going to come down to (IMHO) is the willingness of big ISPs and carriers to adopt technology from a new vendor.

    Cisco may not have the best equipment, but everyone and their dog worth their salt in this game knows IOS and how to admin it. You can't say the same of any of the new vendor's products.

    We've moved beyond the days of "great ideas" and "great products." Internet routing is a mature market in which the biggest obstacle is now overcome the inertia of the entrenched players.

    The anology reminds me of Linux vs. MS, but then again, what doesn't? :)

    1. Re:Same thing, other side of the border by Jobe_br · · Score: 2

      And support. I've personally experienced and heard from others that Cisco's technical support is amazing, bar none. Being transferred around the globe to catch people 'awake' in the proper timezones is a measure of how seriously Cisco take support. I've never worked with other vendor's routers, but ISP's familiarity and appreciation of Cisco's support system will be difficult to overcome.

    2. Re:Same thing, other side of the border by Cato · · Score: 2

      Quite a few vendors are emulating the Cisco IOS command line interface on completely new hardware - e.g. Unisphere and Foundry in the US, and Huawei in China (who produce Cisco clones at 10% of Cisco prices...) Emulating the CLI can be done on any size of router, of course.

  31. Destination-based Wavelengths by vtechpilot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From Thier site:

    Accelerating the war are the recent advances in ultra-long-haul optics and optical switches, which are making it practical for routers to place packets on destination-based wavelengths that can take them as close as possible to their final destination in the core, thus eliminating intermediate routing hops and unnecessary O-E-O conversions.

    I read this as meaning that you have a strand of fiber that runs from say for example Boston, to NY to Washington to Richmond to Charlotte to Atlanta to .... and that a packet originates in Boston and is transmitted in red light to the next node, if the light isn't the color for that node, So if red was Richmond, NY and Washington would reflect the red light down the line until it gets to Richmond. This way NY and WAS don't have to convert the signal which saves a lot of time and work. Also this allows Boston to talk to Richmond as 1 hop as far as the software is concerned. Similarly a packet transmitted in Amber light might go all the way to Atlanta before being converted to Electrons.

    Sounds like a good idea to me since it should work on existing fiber. The real question is how hard and expensive is it to start with two nodes and grow from there.

    --
    Slashdot is an anagram for Has Dolts, and I am Dolt number 468543
    1. Re:Destination-based Wavelengths by DaveRobb · · Score: 1

      What it sounds like is a hardware/optical version of MPLS.

      Cute, but not really that revolutionary.

  32. Re:well they are Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I say bah, you wait and see when we destroy you with our giant snow machines! mwhahahah, so much cold and snow you'll never dig your way out!

  33. Re:Cheer up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dunno about him, but I certainly feel better.

    Mmmmm. Hunting Vampires while in Band Camp!

  34. Lightreading.com article by scubacuda · · Score: 2, Informative

    Lightreading's article, Hyperchip Hypes Its Hardware, claims that Hyperchip stands out in 2 ways:

    1) "It's aiming to create something much more than a bigger, faster, box. It's aiming to create the Internet equivalent of a Class 5 telephone switch, something that would sit at the edge of optical backbones and handle IP connections to tens of thousands of users. Hyperchip's developments would potentially replace entire ISP POPs (points of presence) and would have an aggregate capacity measured in - get this - petabits a second."

    2) "Hyperchip is addressing this requirement in a totally different (some would say bizarre) way. It's devoted most of its efforts into adapting supercomputer hardware to deliver the scalability it requires. Software - considered the key to success by most terabit router vendors and users - seems to be of secondary importance to the Montreal based startup."

    The article says that trials will start at the end of the year. That should prove interesting...

  35. Moore's Law by Apreche · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Look at the graph on the company's white papers. Optical vs. Moore's law. First of all you really can't compare a law and optical. Second of all, they have moores law wrong.

    --
    The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
  36. Please explain how this will help... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...my downloads. Kernel source, MP3, and pr0n. That's all we really care about here, right?

    Oh, and Half-Life pings. I ran an OC48 up into my treehouse but the ping didn't improve so I went back to an OC3. Then winter came.

  37. Is it a coincidence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that your first three suggestions are also the first three words of Homer's ebusiness - HyperCompuGlobalMegaNet? (that was later destroyed by an evil Bill Gates)

  38. Hyperchip's name by mountainman · · Score: 2, Informative

    I used to work for Hyperchip. I don't believe I'm violating my confidentiality agreement by revealing that the name the founder Richard Norman originally wanted was "HyperCorp" but www.hypercorp.com was taken so he settled for Hyperchip instead. The company was founded on the strength of Richard's patents in wafer scale integration and the original business plan included a lot of stuff that was accurately described by the term "hyperchip".

  39. investment money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's 70 million in Canadian funny money so that's about 10 bucks US.

  40. It's the expandability of their backplane.... by addikt10 · · Score: 4, Informative

    That makes their product different. With Cisco gear, you have a very, very small number of high speed ports available to you in one chassis (and several of these "capabilities" are eaten up when you go with redundant solutions).

    The idea behind Hyperchip, that is a supposedly better implementation than Avichi's that preceeded it, is to have a packet switching backplane that is expandable to multiple bays, as opposed to the tiny boxes such as the cisco 12000. Since it is a common backplane, there are fewer "hops".

    The real limit is power. The Avici systems used over 400 amps of three phase power per bay, and (I believe) scaled to 16 bays, each one capable of running over 60 OC-192s at line speed.

    Hyperchip's unit looks better.

    Right now, their just trying to figure out how to market it, and how they can add services inside the box that you wouldn't get otherwise. Think of all the stuff you would like to do to streams of that size, but just can't. Also, think of what to do with packets that are going to full pipes. At OC-192 speeds, you can't hold on to packets. There isn't enough time to put it in to memory.

    PS OC-192 can carry approximately 10 Gb/s. Or, over 1.2GB/s (this isn't ethernet, it's sonet) (but will have 10 Gb ethernet interfaces, but they just can't carry as much)

    At 10 Gb/s, a 1600 byte packet (for those ethernet fans out there) is on the wire (going across a fixed point)for 160 nanoseconds.

    1. Re:It's the expandability of their backplane.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      400 amps? Jesus... where does all that current go? Powering silicon? Or cooling, fans, etc?

  41. Re:Is it me, or are muslims physically repulsive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Purebreed Aryans are only found in India (where the European Aryans emigrated from), so perhaps you should go there to get cock.

  42. One troll less to worry about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please start your boycott as soon as possible.

  43. Re:Seems you can't help it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if its real wheres the working product ? can i buy it ? what does it sell for ? who is going to buy it and in what quantities ? wheres the market ? how will you compete against cisco ironbridge and other vendors ?

  44. It's a circuit switch, not a packet router by Animats · · Score: 2
    This is another one of those circuit switches for "flows", front-ended by a route tagger. Flows are switched at rates far lower than the packet rate. Think of this as a patchboard for the fast optical pipes in the backbone. You could have fixed patching, but as traffic patterns change through the day, devoting extra bandwidth to some routes can be useful.

    The last time this came around on Slashdot, the switch was built out of little micromachined moving mirrors, like the TI video projector.

    Hyperchip has not made the big breakthrough to true optical packet switching, and they admit this in their "white paper". That's considered the next big goal in routing. Hyperchip's technology is an interim measure only.

  45. Re:Cheer up by Jetboy01 · · Score: 1

    thats one helluva site

  46. sounds like hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    any claims of the network core being overloaded in the near future are foolish. go ask any of the large carriers how much dark fiber they have laying in the ground begging for traffic. core routing will be dominated by cisco and juniper for the foreseeable future.

    it's easy to say that you have an amazing new technology that will change internet routing. however, ask them who is developing their routing code? is it from scratch? did they buy gated and are just hacking it? there are only a few development groups out there that can do IP routing development from scratch these days... juniper, cisco, probably procket networks and redback networks. they all have people that have written code from scratch.

    everyone else is hacking gated. gated has issues. gated doesn't scale. gated is not core router routing software.

    i also guarantee that NO carrier, large or small currently has one of these boxes deployed in their production networks.
    it's easy to buy into the hype, but these guys will never be a major player... at best nortel will buy them and rename them the opterra blahblah and then kill it off in 18 months.

  47. Re:Seems you can't help it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Go outside of your caves and have a life instead of loosing your time posting on Slashdot.
    Almost perfect... then you blow it like this.
  48. My knowledge is limited, but some thoughts.. by f00zbll · · Score: 1
    From my understanding of DWDM, optical equipment and sonet, hyperchip sounds interesting. If I am reading the articles and hyperchip's whitepaper correctly, what they have done is two fold:

    1. create chipset that will allow for a greater number of ports, thereby increasing the limit of data sent down one optical trunk
    2. design a different network architecture, which is point to point, rather than a ring. This has two benefits. 1. is there are fewer hops between backbone points. 2. the data is placed on the wavelength of the destination, therefore reducing latency and O-E-O conversion
    Realistically, it will take a good 8-10 years to deploy this kind of technology for several reasons. Most telco's current use sonet architecture, and running new fiber between the major routing points takes time. Now of course there may already be some fiber laid by Quest or Level3, which the telco's can lease. But changing the entire architecture of the network isn't a trivial thing. Even though hyperchip can build the router, it is likely the actual speeds are far lower than Petabit. Plus, routing traffic at a rate exponentially faster than the rest of the system creates a different set of problems.

    On the financial side, telco's have already placed orders for hardware and probably won't place orders for petabit routers for atleast another 4-6 years. It takes a tremendous amount of work, fine tuning and maintenance to keep the backbone operating reliably and efficiently. A more fruitful area of research today is intelligent routers, and routing software. We can only go so far with the hardware approach to network congestion. At some point, the network needs to be smarter to alleviate packet corruption and other related issues.

  49. Hyperchip today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    paper weight tomorrow

  50. Re:well they are Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are a bunch of socialists, what do you expect?

  51. Will their magical router work? by Angelwrath · · Score: 1

    After working in the networking for some time in a research group, I can say that there have been a lot of companies that have come and gone, offering similar "breakthrough" technologies, raised XX millions of dollars, and then went bankrupt quicker than the time it would take for their hardware to become obsolete.

    It's likely that the claim to be able to route up to 1000 times more traffic is only a technology goal for them after they begin producing at least one or more smaller boxes that can't route nearly as much traffic.

    And even if the box can route 1000 times more traffic, you have to cope with the Internet being composed of a variety of smaller sub-networks. If AT&T or Verizon upgrades their networks to use these boxes, and you're not on their network, you aren't going to see any gains at all, unless they make equivalent increases in core network bandwidth and you happen to access large majorities of traffic on their network. For the entire Internet to see gains, most of the network providers will need to adopt the box, or similarly capable boxes, and that rollout will take at least three years assuming these boxes become as trendy as "all your base are belong to us", a game that I never came across in my arcading days. What was the redeeming feature, was it a good game, or was the language just so funny that everyone remembered it?

    The other thing about the product Hyperchip sells is that it's scalable, so while its maximum routable bandwidth won't make it obsolete in one year, the companies using it will never have that capacity available, they will only expand on an as-needed basis.

    It sounds great, but if it does work, Hyperchip will be acquired sooner or later, so the company as it exists now will never live to see the success of the products. Network vendors need to be able to offer much more than a router these days.

  52. One Problem.. by SkewlD00d · · Score: 1

    The problem is that the backbones need more inter-connects to other companies networks at a local level. For example, living in Davis, CA, my packets from my DSL connection went to Palo Alto, CA because they have to go through ISP's internal network before it reached the backbones to get to my university one block away. If there were more interconnects, there would be less congestion and fewer of these chokehold points. I don't think some fancy piece of software/hardware is going to solve anything when the problem is lack of physical connections.

    --
    The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
  53. Damn mac losers! by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

    Every time we see a story like this someone has to say "Ooh, ooh! A MAC doesn't NEED fans!"

    Do we care? It's a PC case. If you like Apple so much, you shouldn't be reading a story for a PC case!

    1. Re:Damn mac losers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh?

  54. What's in a name? by tldraben · · Score: 1

    "Any experts out there think it's hype?"

    Say it slowly and the answer is revealed:

    Hype-yer-Chip

    :]

  55. There's something about this HyperChip... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...proof: first four or five ./ posts were Funny, this doesn't happen every day.

  56. Hyperchip by Izmunuti · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They just closed their fourth round of funding. Note this was 70 million Canadian dollars, US$43 million. Only US$12 million was from venture capitalists, the remaining US$31 million was essentially a loan from the government of Quebec.

    These guys have made some pretty wild claims in the past. Their first product was (maybe still is) to be called the PBR 1280. PBR = PetaBitRouter. They claim it scales to ~65000 OC192 ports. That's pretty freaking huge.

    We'll see. They claim they're relasing a product later this year.

  57. Words from someone who knows... by routerwhore · · Score: 2, Informative
    Alright, you guys are killing me. No one seems to have a clue about the router industry but seems happy to make moronic comments anyway. I work for a router vendor, and have seen Hyperchip's product also. It is the same as most every next gen product from all of the router vendors.

    Multishelf is the new design. Juniper's next gen product, Gibson is multishelf. Alcatel's (not that anyone gives a shit about their IP products) next gen product, the 777, is multishelf. Cisco's and any other core router vendor that still has money is are also building multishelf systems.

    The Hyperchip gear is not revelutionary, it simply can control a lot of shelves and ports from a single vantage port. This doesn't mean that single pipes are going to be running at millions of megabits, it means that you can switch large amounts of traffic across your backplane. This isn't a big deal, its just more then anyone needs right now. The rest of the companies will come out with products that can be daisy chained all day long also, but are busy making in between type products to generate revenue in the mean time.

    This also has nothing to do with DWDM, because again, we aren't talking about bigger pipes. Just bigger boxes to plug more pipes into. The current pipes are OC192/10Gig-E. They are essentially the same thing and work just fine on networks today. The next step is OC768/40Gig. Currently most core routers are being made with 10 Gb/s slots. The next gen of routers will be made with 40 Gb/s slots. This is the landscape for the next 3 years. This is also perfectly natural and makes sense to anyone that has a clue. Now the statement that its 1000 times "faster" is just marketing and hype. But people that actually buy boxes like this don't give a shit about hype. They put boxes in their labs, test the hell out of them, and if they like them, they will by 100 million dollars worth of them. Simple as that. Let the ignorance continue punks.

  58. Don't forget the name change and other shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They used to be called Netcorp, before they changed their name (they claimed to have a VIPSwitch that never did ship). So, when the product never arrives, change your target (they've actually been around since late 1993, if you count the name change, and have burned through a lot of bucks, even if it is in wimpy $CDN).

  59. Re:Montreal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Propz to all the strippers in Montreal. They're what's keeping the sky over Canada going dark with American nukes.

  60. Lucent used to have a router that sounds like this by thogard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But the never found any customers. It turns out that the few people that need very high speed routing don't buy anything but cisco and in that market it won't matter if you have a product thats much better, you'll have poor sales for years before the market will even consider your product.

    As far as routing much faster, its not that hard to do. If you stop treating a router as a router and more like a switch, you can speed things up a grat deal with content addressable memory (the stuff used for cache tags). Its very expensive but 8 mb of CAM ram will let you decide which of 16 interfaces a packet goes to within 500 ps after the address bits hit the hardware. You can't do real time route update on this type of system like a cisco but you can still change routes within miliseconds.

    The ideas behind the internet are dead when a small business can't dual home. Without routable class C address, that has already happened.

  61. Re:well they are Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Registrant:
    WebBlaster Online (DAVEYJ-DOM)
    C/O David J Meier 610 Horicon St.
    Horicon, WI 53032
    US

    Domain Name: DAVEYJ.COM

    Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Billing Contact:
    Meier, David (DJM208) daveyj@HUSHMAIL.COM
    DaveyJ.Com
    610 Horicon St.
    Horicon, WI 53032
    US
    920-485-4568 920-349-3836 920-349-3836

    Record last updated on 19-Oct-2001.
    Record expires on 05-Nov-2002.
    Record created on 05-Nov-1998.
    Database last updated on 19-Jan-2002 07:37:00 EST.

    Domain servers in listed order:

    NS3.ZONEEDIT.COM209.61.140.1
    NS5.ZONEEDIT.COM207.41.71.245

  62. Wrong freaking thread... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That comment was meant for the other thread about the motorless liquid-cooled PC case from Korea. He forgot to pick the wrong window. The real question is, how did it get modded up HERE???

  63. Check out Terabitcorp by Broadcatch · · Score: 3, Interesting

    At TerabitCorp, Alan Huang employed what he calls a Galois Network using many standard off-the-shelf routers to create a fault-tolerant, open platform terabit meta-router with some very cool properties. Not sure if the idea ever flew, though...

    --

    The antidote for misuse of freedom of speech is more freedom of speech.
    -- Molly Ivins

  64. Re:Cheer up by Alsee · · Score: 2

    What cretin modded that OFFTOPIC?!?

    I'm sorry, but in *my* universe, redheads are never off topic :)

    Anyone of the same oppinion might want to check here.

    P.S.
    No, parent comment wasn't from me. I wouldn't have bothered going Anonymous.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  65. Flash by Alsee · · Score: 2

    Akkkk!

    I wanted to get some details on the tech, so I clicked the link to their website and got bombarded by a Flash.

    Ok, am I a freak because that website make be want to severly hurt somebody (the inventor of Flash comes to mind), or are the freaks the suits who go to the web site and are impressed by the Flash?

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  66. Pent-up Demand? by evilviper · · Score: 2

    I guess with the stock-market crash and the effect of the Sept 11th attacks, there must have been quite a bit of pent-up demand for snake-oil stocks.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  67. Avici Terabit Routers by billstewart · · Score: 2
    AT&T's network has been using the Avici TSR routers to handle their OC192 trunks.

    "Terabit", when describing routers, currently refers to the total capacity of the box, not to actually having terabit connections :-) OC192 is 10 Gbits, and is starting to become a mature technology. OC768 is 40 Gbits; I'm not sure if anybody's routing at that speed yet (probably), but it's not close enough to mature to be practical for anything more than the marketing value of *your* network having the biggest fastest pipe in existence, even if it's only going from San Francisco to San Jose.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  68. Before the market crashed.... by billstewart · · Score: 2
    Before the Justice Department Anti-Trust goons beat up Microsoft, Alan Greenspan raised interest rates a lot because the economy was "overheated", and the market crashed, there were really three business plans out there
    • Go public and become Mozillionaires
    • Sell out to Microsoft if you make software or web services
    • Sell out to Cisco if you make hardware

    Going public was fun if you could get investors to go for it (and if you could keep the stock price high until your six-months-can't-sell window was over). Selling out to MS (popularized by Hotmail's $400M or so deal) stopped being fun when the DoJ was threatening to rip MS apart into three companies, none of which were sure they'd want to buy you, so lots of small companies went bust. Selling out to Cisco still looked like fun, because Cisco shares were like cash, only better. Sigh.... the still-mostly-good-old-days.
    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  69. It's using Flash to increase bandwidth demand :-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Face it, there's only so much bandwidth demand out there if people stick to text - the reason to use Flash and Streaming Media and MP3 Narrations For Web Pages is so y'all will start using up more bandwidth so people will buy their routers :-)