[133253] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Lightning Debates at NANOG 51
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tom Daly)
Tue Dec 7 15:47:12 2010
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 15:45:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Tom Daly <tom@dyn.com>
To: Greg Whynott <Greg.Whynott@oicr.on.ca>
In-Reply-To: <86446A2E-36A3-4EC3-A3F8-AA2E5D491BF2@oicr.on.ca>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Greg,
> i suspect you are correct, not sure who would elect for the slower
> standard, considering they hit the streets fairly close to each other
> and I can't see there being a huge difference in cost, but i could be
> wrong. (the isp i'm connected to is running100G now)
Regarding 40G/100G, I'm sure some in the NANOG community have some feeling =
towards 40G as it was intended to be a server platform standard. With archi=
tectures such as 1aq, TRILL, VL2, etc, there may be some grounds here. What=
's the good of 100G if you can't push the PPS, for example. Just a thought.=
..
> i've more 10G ports than you can shake a stick at actually=E2=80=A6 my '=
?'
> was again, people debate this? as the bit rates are verbatum, the
> major difference which one would choose the other over from my
> understanding was distance to endpoint.. but again i could be wrong=E2=
=80=A6=20
> wishing now i didn't send anything. 8)
Nah, send away. What debate were you volunteering to take a position on aga=
in? :)
Tom
