I've always kind of wanted a guestimate and cost breakdown (politics/fiber cost/trenching) as to how much it costs to run, oh, 16km of quality 100GBit fiber from los gatos to me. I know, month to month that would kind of cost a lot to fill....
I costed out what it would take to trench the whole community once upon a time, and instead of that I've been patiently awaiting my first starlink terminals.... https://www.google.com/maps/place/20600+Aldercroft+Heights+Rd,+Los+Gatos,+CA+95033/@37.1701322,-121.9806674,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x808e37ced60da4fd:0x189086a00c73ad37!8m2!3d37.1701322!4d-121.9784787 On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 2:09 PM Joel Wirāmu Pauling <j...@aenertia.net> wrote: > > Another neat thing about 400 and 800GE is that you can get MPO optics that > allow splitting a single 4x100 or 8x100 into individual 100G feeds. Good for > port density and/or adding capacity to processing/Edge/Appliances > > Now there are decent ER optics for 100G you can now do 40-70KM runs of each > 100G link without additional active electronics on the path or going to and > optical transport route. > > On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 at 08:57, Michael Richardson <m...@sandelman.ca> wrote: >> >> >> Mikael Abrahamsson via Cerowrt-devel wrote: >> > Backbone ISPs today are built with lots of parallel links (20x100GE for >> > instance) and then we do L4 hashing for flows across these. This means >> >> got it. inverse multiplexing of flows across *links* >> >> > We're now going for 100 gigabit/s per lane (it's been going up from >> 4x2.5G >> > for 10GE to 1x10G, then we went for lane speeds of 10G, 25G, 50G and >> now >> > we're at 100G per lane), and it seems the 800GE in your link has 8 >> lanes of >> > that. This means a single L4 flow can be 800GE even though it's in >> reality >> > 8x100G lanes, as a single packet bits are being sprayed across all the >> > lanes. >> >> Here you talk about *lanes*, and inverse multiplexing of a single frame >> across *lanes*. >> Your allusion to PCI-E is well taken, but if I am completing the analogy, and >> the reference to DWDM, I'm thinking that you are talking about 100 gigabit/s >> per lambda, with a single frame being inverse multiplexed across lambdas (as >> lanes). >> >> Did I understand this correctly? >> >> I understand a bit of "because we can". >> I also understand that 20 x 800GE parallel links is better than 20 x 100GE >> parallel links across the same long-haul (dark) fiber. >> >> But, what is the reason among ISPs to desire enabling a single L4 flow to >> use more >> than 100GE? Given that it seems that being able to L3 switch 800GE is harder >> than switching 8x flows of already L4 ordered 100GE. (Flowlabel!), why pay >> the extra price here? >> >> While I can see L2VPN use cases, I can also see that L2VPNs could generate >> multiple flows themselves if they wanted. >> >> -- >> ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks >> [ >> ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect >> [ >> ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails >> [ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Cerowrt-devel mailing list >> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel > > _______________________________________________ > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel -- Make Music, Not War Dave Täht CTO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-831-435-0729 _______________________________________________ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
