[156807] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: /. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mikael Abrahamsson)
Thu Sep 27 09:42:48 2012
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:41:52 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: jim deleskie <deleskie@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJL_ZMOPDUEM9hKvKhUxNfrnr6HtBGiOZZV7U1Had3sR=mNzvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, jim deleskie 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?
I'd say most are not willing to pay any premium at all, but are willing to
adopt 4x interface speed when there is parity in cost/bit/s to bonded
tech.
I opposed 40GE, but since physics is a lot of the problem here, I think
400GE is favorable over 1TE. Already now we're sitting with platforms with
forwarding performance per slot that doesn't really match 100GE nicely,
imagine the equivalent problem for 1TE. By the time this is ready, will
platforms be at slightly over 1T per slot, perhaps it then makes more
sense to have 3x400GE instead of 1x1TE per slot.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
