[156804] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: /. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (jim deleskie)
Thu Sep 27 09:26:47 2012
In-Reply-To: <23047F2D-0BD7-4DDB-ADC3-54AE56684BEE@puck.nether.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:26:39 -0300
From: jim deleskie <deleskie@gmail.com>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
That problem IMO will only be worse with a 4x speed multiplier over
100G what premium will anyone be willing to spend to have a single
400G pipe over 4 bonded 100G pipes?
-jim
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote=
:
>
> On Sep 27, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Darius Jahandarie <djahandarie@gmail.com> wr=
ote:
>
>> I recall 40Gbit/s Ethernet being promoted heavily for similar reasons
>> as the ones in this article, but then 100Gbit/s being the technology
>> that actually ended up in most places. Could this be the same thing
>> happening?
>
> I would say yes, except for the physics involved here. Getting the signa=
l done optically is the "easy" part.
>
> I'm not concerned if the next step after 100 is 400. It's in the right d=
irection and a fair multiple. There is also a problem in the 100GbE space =
where the market pricing hasn't yet reached an amount whereby the economics=
are "close enough" to push people beyond N*10G.
>
> - Jared
