Several good presentations were given at the IEEE meeting in Geneva last
week about why we should do 400 GbE and not TbE. You can find them here:
http://www.ieee802.org/3/ad_hoc/hse/public/12_09/index.shtml .
Greg
--
Greg Hankins
t...@ninjabadger.net wrote:
>> It depends on distance between senders and receivers.
>>
>> However, at certain distance it becomes impossible to use
>> efficient (w.r.t. bits per symbol) encoding, because of
>> noise of repeated EDFA amplification.
>
> <500km not enough?
>
> https://www.de-cix.n
On Mon, 1 Oct 2012, t...@ninjabadger.net wrote:
If you can afford Wave Logic 3 interfaces for your Nortel^WCiena 6500's,
you'll find some pretty impressive things are actually possible,
including 100G per 100GHz guide over very large distances (think
Atlantic-large).
The amount of processing
On 2012-10-01 08:57, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Tom Hill wrote:
Once you get your head (and wallet) around that, there becomes a
case
for running each of your waves at 2.5x the rate they're employed at
now.
The remaining question is then to decide if that's cheaper than
running
more fibre.
It de
Tom Hill wrote:
> Once you get your head (and wallet) around that, there becomes a case
> for running each of your waves at 2.5x the rate they're employed at now.
> The remaining question is then to decide if that's cheaper than running
> more fibre.
It depends on distance between senders and
On 30/09/12 20:05, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On 9/29/12, Masataka Ohta wrote:
>Jared Mauch wrote:
...
>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).
Interesting.Well, I would say if there are
joel jaeggli wrote:
>>> 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).
>> Interesting.Well, I would say if there are no technical
>> improvements that will significantly improve performa
On 9/30/12 12:05 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On 9/29/12, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Jared Mauch wrote:
...
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).
Interesting.Well, I would say if there are no
On 9/29/12, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Jared Mauch wrote:
...
> 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).
Interesting.Well, I would say if there are no technical
improvements that will sig
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 ca
On 9/27/12 5:58 AM, Darius Jahandarie wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
http://slashdot.org/topic/datacenter/terabit-ethernet-is-dead-for-now/
Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now
I recall 40Gbit/s Ethernet being promoted heavily for similar reasons
as the ones in this a
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 6:04 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 08:58:09AM -0400, Darius
> Jahandarie wrote:
>> I recall 40Gbit/s Ethernet being promoted heavily for similar reasons
>> as the ones in this article, but then 100Gbit/s being the technology
>> that
On 27/09/2012 14:58, Darius Jahandarie wrote:
> I recall 40Gbit/s Ethernet being promoted heavily for similar reasons
> as the ones in this article, but then 100Gbit/s being the technology
> that actually ended up in most places. Could this be the same thing
> happening?
no. the IEEE working grou
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> I opposed 40GE, but since physics is a lot of the problem here, I think
> 400GE is favorable over 1TE. Already now we're sitting with platforms with
> forwarding performance per slot that doesn't really match 100GE nicely,
> imagine th
On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, jim deleskie wrote:
That problem IMO will only be worse with a 4x speed multiplier over
100G what premium will anyone be willing to spend to have a single 400G
pipe over 4 bonded 100G pipes?
I'd say most are not willing to pay any premium at all, but are willing to
adop
On Sep 27, 2012, at 9:26 AM, jim deleskie wrote:
> That problem IMO will only be worse with a 4x speed multiplier over
> 100G what premium will anyone be willing to spend to have a single
> 400G pipe over 4 bonded 100G pipes?
When you consider that 10GE is less than 10X the price of Gig-E, wh
If they would have rolled out 1000G networks now, I guess we will have to
plug in 17 MTP interfaces ;)
HTH,
Dan #13685 (RS/Sec/SP)
The CCIE troubleshooting blog: http://dans-net.com
Bring order to your Private VLAN network: http://marathon-networks.com
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Eug
That problem IMO will only be worse with a 4x speed multiplier over
100G what premium will anyone be willing to spend to have a single
400G pipe over 4 bonded 100G pipes?
-jim
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Sep 27, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Darius Jahandarie wrote:
>
>> I
On Sep 27, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Darius Jahandarie wrote:
> I recall 40Gbit/s Ethernet being promoted heavily for similar reasons
> as the ones in this article, but then 100Gbit/s being the technology
> that actually ended up in most places. Could this be the same thing
> happening?
I would say yes
In a message written on Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 08:58:09AM -0400, Darius
Jahandarie wrote:
> I recall 40Gbit/s Ethernet being promoted heavily for similar reasons
> as the ones in this article, but then 100Gbit/s being the technology
> that actually ended up in most places. Could this be the same thi
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> http://slashdot.org/topic/datacenter/terabit-ethernet-is-dead-for-now/
>
> Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now
I recall 40Gbit/s Ethernet being promoted heavily for similar reasons
as the ones in this article, but then 100Gbit/s being the techno
21 matches
Mail list logo
