[64947] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Copper 10 gigabit @ 15 metres
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Deepak Jain)
Wed Nov 5 19:44:40 2003
Reply-To: <deepak@ai.net>
From: "Deepak Jain" <deepak@ai.net>
To: "Henry Linneweh" <hrlinneweh@sbcglobal.net>,
"Neil J. McRae" <neil@DOMINO.ORG>
Cc: "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike@swm.pp.se>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 19:44:02 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20031106000327.82823.qmail@web80509.mail.yahoo.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_07F3_01C3A3D5.2A6353E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
At the risk of over simplifying this.
1) Deploying anything 4x faster than what you need is not cost-effective,
ever. Even deploying GE where 2xFE would work is more expensive.
2a) If (again, thinking IXes here) you are offloading most of your locally
sourced traffic to peers at an IX, you may be able to use >OC48 connect
speeds
without needing your backbone to actually pass 20+Gb/s. Everyone has a
different network design, so it really depends. Guys who push can use 10GE
sooner (IMO) than guys that pull because of the IX case here.
b) Cable networks and networks where most of the traffic is internal or to
a few large peers could benefit here too.
3a ) Anyone who doesn't have 5Gb/s of aggregate traffic probably doesn't
have the peer density to send more than 2Gb/s to a single IX or peer anyway.
(see #1).
b) In the case where at a single point you need more than 1-2Gb/s per
peer, you may want to deploy 10GE or something similar because you have
sufficient capacity to handle another peering location to fail entirely for
an extended period of time without (hopefully) affecting bandwidth to your
peer. There are some assumptions here, so YMMV.
Fortunately, no one is requiring anyone to use this, yet...
Deepak Jain
AiNET
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of
Henry Linneweh
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 7:03 PM
To: deepak@ai.net; Neil J. McRae
Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson; nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: Copper 10 gigabit @ 15 metres
The backbone at the time of my original work that I participated in was
40Gits/in and 40Gbits/out unless that has changed 10GigE is not practical or
cost effective if it is limited to local area's and provate connections.
That doesn't mean from A design
perspective that A cost effective solution has already been designed, the
position
of the market and the cost per megabit for most companies is not there,
most
companies now do 2.5Gbits bi-diectioonally for 5Gbits and barely use all
of that.
-Henry
Deepak Jain <deepak@ai.net> wrote:
> > While there are some smitherings about 10GigE, there are
> technical reasons and
> > market reasons it is not really ready for prime yet, that is
> not to say it's not going
> > to happen, it is just not going happen now.
> >
>
> Some people are using it in the MAN and WAN now though.
Exactly. At the EQIX/ASH GPF Telia and AOL both said they were using
10GE
cross-connects for private peering. So that means at least 3-4 major
networks are using them in production in a LAN, MAN or WAN environment.
When you are aggregating lots of a GEs, there isn't really a great,
cost-effective way to move all of these bits cost-effectively. nxOC48 is
pretty cheap, but a little ugly if you need the bandwidth unchoked. 10GE
is
supposed to get there, but at a 10xGE price, not a OC192 type price.
The real advantage of Copper 10G is that eventually you can deploy it to
all
the existing copper [inside] plants that people have currently deployed.
Just like GE, it eventually just becomes tolerant enough to use existing
wiring. I would be very happy if the first boxes that came out with
these
long range xenpaks were muxes that would take 10xGE -> 1x10GE -- this
would
solve the uplink problem from smaller gear in a heartbeat.
Deepak Jain
AiNET
------=_NextPart_000_07F3_01C3A3D5.2A6353E0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1264" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D222263700-06112003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>At the=20
risk of over simplifying this.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D222263700-06112003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D222263700-06112003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>1)=20
Deploying anything 4x faster than what you need is not cost-effective, =
ever.=20
Even deploying GE where 2xFE would work is more =
expensive.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D222263700-06112003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D222263700-06112003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>2a) If=20
(again, thinking IXes here) you are offloading most of your locally =
sourced=20
traffic to peers at an IX, you may be able to use >OC48 connect=20
speeds</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D222263700-06112003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>without needing your backbone to actually pass 20+Gb/s. =
Everyone has a=20
different network design, so it really depends. Guys who push can use =
10GE=20
sooner (IMO) than guys that pull because of the IX case=20
here.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D222263700-06112003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D222263700-06112003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2> =20
b) Cable networks and networks where most of the traffic is internal or =
to=20
a few large peers could benefit here too.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D222263700-06112003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D222263700-06112003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D222263700-06112003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>3a )=20
Anyone who doesn't have 5Gb/s of aggregate traffic probably doesn't have =
the=20
peer density to send more than 2Gb/s to a single IX or peer anyway. (see =
#1).</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D222263700-06112003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2> =20
b) In the case where at a single point you need more than 1-2Gb/s per =
peer, you=20
may want to deploy 10GE or something similar because you have sufficient =
capacity to handle another peering location to fail entirely for an =
extended=20
period of time without (hopefully) affecting bandwidth to your peer. =
There are=20
some assumptions here, so YMMV.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D222263700-06112003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D222263700-06112003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Fortunately, no one is requiring anyone to use this,=20
yet...</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D222263700-06112003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D222263700-06112003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Deepak=20
Jain</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D222263700-06112003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>AiNET</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D222263700-06112003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px =
solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> =
owner-nanog@merit.edu=20
[mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]<B>On Behalf Of </B>Henry=20
Linneweh<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, November 05, 2003 7:03 =
PM<BR><B>To:</B>=20
deepak@ai.net; Neil J. McRae<BR><B>Cc:</B> Mikael Abrahamsson;=20
nanog@merit.edu<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: Copper 10 gigabit @ 15=20
metres<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>The backbone at the time of my original work that I participated =
in was=20
40Gits/in and 40Gbits/out unless that has changed 10GigE is not =
practical or=20
cost effective if it is limited to local area's and provate =
connections. That=20
doesn't mean from A design</DIV>
<DIV>perspective that A cost effective solution has already been=20
designed, the position</DIV>
<DIV>of the market and the cost per megabit for most companies is not =
there,=20
most</DIV>
<DIV>companies now do 2.5Gbits bi-diectioonally for 5Gbits and barely =
use all=20
of that.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>-Henry<BR><BR><B><I>Deepak Jain <deepak@ai.net></I></B>=20
wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=3Dreplbq=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px =
solid"><BR>>=20
> While there are some smitherings about 10GigE, there =
are<BR>>=20
technical reasons and<BR>> > market reasons it is not really =
ready for=20
prime yet, that is<BR>> not to say it's not going<BR>> > to =
happen,=20
it is just not going happen now.<BR>> ><BR>><BR>> Some =
people=20
are using it in the MAN and WAN now though.<BR><BR>Exactly. At the =
EQIX/ASH=20
GPF Telia and AOL both said they were using 10GE<BR>cross-connects =
for=20
private peering. So that means at least 3-4 major<BR>networks are =
using them=20
in production in a LAN, MAN or WAN environment.<BR><BR>When you are=20
aggregating lots of a GEs, there isn't really a =
great,<BR>cost-effective way=20
to move all of these bits cost-effectively. nxOC48 is<BR>pretty =
cheap, but a=20
little ugly if you need the bandwidth unchoked. 10GE is<BR>supposed =
to get=20
there, but at a 10xGE price, not a OC192 type price.<BR><BR>The real =
advantage of Copper 10G is that eventually you can deploy it to =
all<BR>the=20
existing copper [inside] plants that people have currently =
deployed.<BR>Just=20
like GE, it eventually just becomes tolerant enough to use=20
existing<BR>wiring. I would be very happy if the first boxes that =
came out=20
with these<BR>long range xenpaks were muxes that would take 10xGE =
->=20
1x10GE -- this would<BR>solve the uplink problem from smaller gear =
in a=20
heartbeat.<BR><BR>Deepak=20
Jain<BR>AiNET<BR><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_07F3_01C3A3D5.2A6353E0--
