[156806] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: /. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rosenthal Phil)
Thu Sep 27 09:36:24 2012
From: Rosenthal Phil <pr@isprime.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJL_ZMOPDUEM9hKvKhUxNfrnr6HtBGiOZZV7U1Had3sR=mNzvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 09:35:44 -0400
To: jim deleskie <deleskie@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sep 27, 2012, at 9:26 AM, jim deleskie <deleskie@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
When you consider that 10GE is less than 10X the price of Gig-E, which =
is less than 10X the price of Fast-E (Slow-E by today's standards?) ... =
The economics don't really make sense that 40GE > 4 * 10GE, and 100GE > =
10X 10GE ...
The manufacturers are probably shooting themselves in the foot here, =
because for anyone who does not need anything faster than 10GE (which =
represents many ISP's, enterprises, etc), they would consider 40/100GE =
if it were cheap enough to have a nice luxury, but not if they are =
paying a huge premium. This translates into fewer overall sales, which =
translates into the product becoming "niche", and the parts ending up =
more expensive for those who do need it (Tier 1 ISP's, CDN's, Large Tier =
2's, Exchanges, etc). As we all know, margins in many of those types of =
businesses are not huge in the first place, translating to an even =
smaller demand for that technology. That smaller demand ultimately =
translates to fewer dollars available for developing the next =
generation. The market doesn't just need faster interlinks, it needs =
them to be cheaper (per-bit), too!
-Phil=
