- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- This discussion was initiated in 2009 and after three years, there is still no consensus to merge the two articles. I am therefore closing the discussion as no consensus. WTF? (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I suggest merging this article Carrier Ethernet and the Metro Ethernet article as both speak about the same thing. Infact they actually mean the same thing.
- I am not sure those two are same. CE is rather a back-end technology for various front-ends while ME is ethernet in both back- and frotn-end.--Kozuch (talk) 10:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Can you explain back-end and front-end as it relates here? I think this should discussed at one place and I strated at Talk:Metro_Ethernet, my thoughts there, sorry.220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree they address the same issue - however since Metro Ethernet has evolved into Carrier Ethernet as a set of standards this should stand on it's own along with references from the Metro Ethernet segments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msh317 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Correct. Carrier Ethernet is a technology not a market or application, while Metro Ethernet very clearly is the latter.
- Consider that Carrier Ethernet standards for Quality of Service (QoS) and remote management will eventually be deployed on smaller LANs - those within buildings and perhaps eventually even into homes - as a standard for connecting NAS and other wired devices at 10G, 40G and 100G speeds. It sounds like overkill now but wait until the average person has 10TB+ of storage and five HDTVs and five laptops (one per person) in their house plus all the phones going in and out of those five plus twenty other visitors with network access. In other words a Metro Network of 20 years ago.
- So keep one article on the technology and talk about metro networks the application in another. For instance considerations like physical security vulnerabilities or power demands or outage prevention that are specific to metro ethernet should be in that article, though arguably they belong in a metro network or metro area network or as a subclass of wide area network (oh just because a term is commonly acronymized doesn't mean the generic phrase should be capitalized when it is all spelled out).
- Use of the terms "metro" or "carrier" for these protocols will look silly sooner than we expect. So make sure to redirect E-line (which should become an disambiguation page as there is another protocol by that name, for powerline networking) and E-LAN and E-tree to this page or more specific pages on just those protocols.
- I made the disambiguation for E-line and then noticed this one should be E-Line anyway, so they both eventually get to the EVPL article which could use a bit of improvement or combine them all into a EVC page. Hope you can improve the mew E-LAN and E-Tree pages a bit too. Perhaps anything that doesn't belong in Carrier Ethernet should be moved to Metropolitan Area Network so the pages are easier to merge later, although "Metro Ethernet" tends to imply that its about MEF Ethernet standards rather than being limited to only metro networks. --Webwat (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm still looking for a good reference that distinguishes between Metro Ethernet and Carrier Ethernet. BUT, from the MEF point of view: "Within the context of the MEF specifications, Metro Ethernet and Carrier Ethernet or MENs and CENs can be used interchangeably".
- My head still hurts reading these articles. It has now been two years since the merge has been proposed; time to come to a consensus. Not sure which side the above is arguing. The articles Ethernet in the first mile, Connection-oriented Ethernet and ETTH are all confused too. ETTH is just unsourced anecdotes and then EFM information, so I would like to merge in that direction at least. Also merge in the two independent PHY articles 2BASE-TL and 10PASS-TS. But those low layers are simple compared to the rest. We do not need a stand-alone article on each neologism that gets trendy for a few years. I could see a split into, say, business narrative vs. technical standards, for example, but Carrier and Metro both dive heavily into the alphabet soup. Another divide might be the access networks (although that seems covered under Ethernet in the first mile and Fiber to the x) vs. the architecture of the inside of the networks, but those are really IP vs. ATM, not Ethernet. Interesting All IP goes to Next generation network which is just the content-free marketing term telcos use to describe whatver they want to sell. If we want to keep Carrier and Metro separate, then we need a clear distinction of what goes where. W Nowicki (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Discussion moved from Metro Ethernet
Merge with Carrier Ethernet
These two articles are covering the same topic. Some points made in Carrier Ethernet should also appear here and vice versa. As I see it, the primary difference is quickly stated: The operation is either run by a company calling themselves a carrier or run by another entity such as a government, private concern, or even a non-profit.
In referance to the comment from User:Kozuch about front-end and back-end: As I understant the jargon, front-end refers to the entity seen by the public and in some cases that could be the a reseller using their name as opposed to who is providing the back-end or "the network mechanics", which I would call the carrier. I don't think that matters within the context of this article. ML 18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Continued.... Notice the lead of the Wikipedia article: "Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) was founded in 2001. It is a non-profit international industry consortium, dedicated to worldwide adoption of Carrier Ethernet networks and services." This is the lead of a 2006 Business Wire article: “Siemens Communications today announced that its Carrier Ethernet technology has been certified as compliant with specification 14 of the Metro Ethernet Forum.”
In my readings, the term “metro ethernet” came into use as a short form of “metropolitan area network using ethernet”. The term “carrier ethernet” came into use when the term metropolitan was not appropriate, for instance, as a rural area network or as a large undefined sized network. The term “carrier” seems to be revived from “common carrier”. The new “carrier ethernet” wiki article was begun in February 2008 and the older “metro ethernet” article was begun in June 2005. I have seen tech magazine articles that often equate “carrier ethernet” and “metro ethernet” and others that tend to imply subtle differences. To complicate matters, the terms “regional ethernet” and "carrier-class ethernet" have also been used. I suspect new equivalent terms will emerge as vendors compete to differentiate their offerings. ML 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree: merge with Carrier Ethernet
Yes, this needs to be merged with the Carrier Ethernet page. Unfortunately there's a lot of confusion on this subject; having 2 pages only adds to that confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shmelyova (talk • contribs) 03:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think Metro and Carrier Ethernet are talking about different concepts that both use the same technology and usually include the same networks. Perhaps Carrier Ethernet could be seen as an aggregating concept that includes WAN and regional networks, so both Metro Ethernet and Wide area network pages should include sections that describe the relationship between generalised "Carrier Ethernet" technologies and the scope of the network they apply to (being Metro, WAN, inter-network etc). Am I on the right track? Or should just the Carrier Ethernet page include a section on variation of design that depend on network scope? --Webwat (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Any thoughts on this? This merge has been pending for 3 years. Want to get a sense of the current feeling from editors - is a merge still a good idea? --KarlB (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- I support the merge. It is much easier to improve one bad article than two. -—Kvng 16:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.