/. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now

Jimmy Hess mysidia at gmail.com
Sun Sep 30 19:05:15 UTC 2012

On 9/29/12, Masataka Ohta <mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> 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 significantly improve performance over the best
possible carrier Ethernet bonding implementation and   no cost savings
at the physical layer  over picking the higher data rate physical
layer standard,  _after_   considering  the increased hardware costs
due to newly manufactured components for a standard that is just

E.g.  If no fewer transceivers and fewer strands of fiber required,
or  shorter wavelength required,  so it doesn't enable you to achieve
greater throughput over the same amount of light spectrum on your
cabling, and therefore lower cost at sufficient density,   then:  in
that case, there will probably be fairly little point in  having the
higher rate standard exist in the first place,   as long as the
bonding mechanisms available are good  for the previous standard.

Just keep bonding together more and more data links at  basic units of
 10GE,  until the required throughput capacity has been achieved.

It's not as if a newer  1 Tbit  standard, will make the bits you send
get read at the other end faster than the speed of light.      Newer
standard does not necessarily mean  more reliable, technically better,
or more efficient,      so it is prudent to  consider what is actually
achieved that would benefit networks considered to be potential
candidates for implementation of the new standard,  before actually
making it a standard...


More information about the NANOG mailing list