On Apr 18, 2008, at 4:15 PM, Scott Francis wrote: > http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html > > I find claims that "soon everything will be HD" somewhat dubious > (working for a company that produces video for online distribution) - > although certainly not as eyebrow-raising as "in 3 years' time, 20 > typical households will generate more traffic than the entire Internet > today". Is there some secret plan to put 40Gb ethernet to "typical > households" in the next 3 years that I haven't heard about? I don't > have accurate figures on how much traffic "the entire Internet" > generates, but I'm fairly certain that 5% of it could not be generated > by any single household regardless of equipment installed, torrents > traded or videos downloaded. Even given a liberal application of > Moore's Law, I doubt that would be the case in 2010 either.
40 Gbps? Does anyone think the Internet has fewer than twenty 40 Gbps links' worth of traffic? I know individual networks that have more traffic. Could we get 100 Gbps to the home by 2010? Hell, we're having trouble getting 100 Gbps to the CORE by 2010 thanx to companies like Sun forcing 40 Gbps ethernet down the IEEE's throat. Not that 100 Gbps would be enough anyway to make his statement true. > Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if > they even had a basis at all)? His answers are so far off, they're not even wrong. Basis? You don't need a basis for such blatantly and objectively false information that even the most newbie neophyte laughs their ass off while reading it. Good thing C|Net asked "vice president of legislative affairs" about traffic statistics. Or maybe they didn't ask, but they sure listened. Perhaps they should ask the Network Architect about the legislative implications around NN laws. Actually, they would probably get more useful answers than asking a lawyer about bandwidth. C|Net-- I'd say the same about at&t, but .... -- TTFN, patrick > Internal reports from ATT engineering? > Perusal of industry news sources? IRC? A lot of scary numbers were > tossed into the air without any mention of how they were derived. A > cynical person might be tempted to think it was all a scare tactic to > soften up legislators for the next wave of "reasonable network > management" practices that just happen to have significant revenue > streams attached to them ... > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED],darkuncle.net} || 0x5537F527 > http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc for public key > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG@nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
