BGP over TLS

Fri Oct 25 09:06:17 UTC 2019

> From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists at gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 7:08 AM
> 
> > > > So move from bilateral peering over common IX-LAN to direct
> > > > peering Or if a direct link is still not to be trusted do MACSEC.
> > > > Then it's all about you and the peer -if he/she screws you over de-peer.
> > >
> > > and it burning a 100g port on a chassis for ~1g (or less) of traffic
> > > is worthwhile...
> > Sure cause the usual math is if I have 100G to IX LAN which is half empty
> then going direct means 100G x number of peers I'd like to move to direct
> peering...
> 
> Sorry, I skipped a sentence figuring it wasn't worth typing, but ...
> "100g is the new 10g which was the new 1g ... and on 100g platforms you
> often don't get 1g as well... it's harder to delivery 10G (almost) than 100g :( "
> 
> So default at the edge is moving to 100g for some folk
> 
Nah that's just advertising, 100G is still not quite there yet:
100G SR4 99,-
40G SR4 39,-
10G SR 18,-
1000BASE-T 18,-
1000BASE-SX 6,-

100G LR 799,-
40G LR 279,-
10G LR 24,-
1G LX 7,-

Yes these are just indicative transceiver prices, but it sort of speaks to the argument of 100G for anything cause it doesn't matter.
Also from the forwarding chip perspective,
100G being a new 10G is currently has a faint chance only on the most "simplest" merchant silicon, it will take a long time till this notion trickles down and is reflected in prices of vendor NPUs/PFEs or cards.
e.g. try comparing list prices of a 32 port 10G card to a 32 port 100G card and then tell me it doesn't really matter whether you'll burn a 10G or 100G port for the 1g peer :)

adam