/. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now
mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
Mon Oct 1 12:01:30 UTC 2012
tom at 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?
As it says:
ADVA Optical Networking's 100G Metro solution is built on
4x28G direct detection technology
and I wrote:
Still, for 100GE, under some circumstances, 100GE with 4*25G may
become less expensive than 10*10GE.
100GE over 500km could be fine.
>> For 50Gbps lane, it becomes even harder and, for 100Gbps lane,
>> it will likely to be impossible.
> Tell this to Ciena... ;)
> 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
I'm afraid it uses 8 or 4 lanes.
> Coherence appears to be the secret sauce in pushing the SnR boundaries,
Just +3db, which is already counted, nothing more than that.
>> But, it does not say much about >100G.
> Yes, that is the one. Slide #11 is the one I'm referring to, 'Projection
> of Form Factor Evolution to 400G', which is relevant to the discussion
> on optic densities and the push above 100G.
As I wrote from the beginning that:
(if same plug and cable are used both for 100GE and 10*10GE).
physical form factors can be identical between 100GE (10*10G) and
Thus, the point of the slide #11 is not a valid counter argument
against my point that trunked 40*10GE or 16*25GE is no worse than
actually trunked 400GE with 40*10G or 16*25G.
While slide #12 mentions 50Gbps per lane, it is too often impossible
to be as practical as the Ethernet today.
More information about the NANOG