Hi All.
It appears we're discussing theoretical limits of silica-based glass
here. The Press Release assertion talks about what a trader might
experience. Hm. I would ask Rob Beck to clarify this point and inform
whether the stated objective in the release accounts for the many o-e
and e-o conversions on the overland part of the end-to-end trader
connection, including the handoffs that occur in the NY and London
metros. I know that terrestrially, i.e., here in the US, some
brokerage firms and large banks (is there any longer a distinction
between those two today?:) have used their clout to secure links that
are virtually entirely optical in nature on routes that are under a
thousand miles, but this is not an option on a submarine system
that's intrinsically populated with electronics, never mind the tail
sections that assume multiple service providers getting into the act.
Rob? Anyone?
FAC
--- valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
To: Heath Jones <hj1...@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: A New TransAtlantic Cable System
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 10:08:50 -0400
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 15:01:25 BST, Heath Jones said:
> >
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Hibernia-Atlantic-to-bw-3184701710.html
?x=0&.v=1
> Sales spam - but still - very close to minimum possible latency!
> 3471 miles @ 186,282 miles/s * 1.5 in glass * 2 round trip =
55.9ms.
My first thought is that they've found a way to cheat on the 1.5. If
you can
make it work at 1.4, you get down to 52.2ms - but get it *too* low
and all
your photons leak out the sides. Hmm.. Unless you have a magic core
that
runs at 1.1 and a *cladding* that's up around 2.0?
