[156921] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: /. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Masataka Ohta)
Sat Sep 29 06:25:30 2012
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 19:24:55 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <23047F2D-0BD7-4DDB-ADC3-54AE56684BEE@puck.nether.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Jared Mauch wrote:
> 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.
The problem is that physical layer of 100GE (with 10*10G) and
10*10GE are identical (if same plug and cable are used both for
100GE and 10*10GE).
Both 100GE and 10*10GE use trunking. The difference is whether
trunking is done below (100GE) or above (10*10GE) L2 framing.
While 100GE has lower HOL delay (though already negligible with
10GE), 10*10GE is more flexible.
Still, for 100GE, under some circumstances, 100GE with 4*25G may
become less expensive than 10*10GE.
But, as it is unlikely that 1TE will be 4*250G or 400GE will
be 2*200G, faster Ethernet has little, if any, economical merit.
Masataka Ohta
