nanog mailing list archives
Re: /. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:01:30 +0900
tom () 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.net/news-events/latest-news/news/article/de-cix-chooses-adva-optical-networkings-100g-metro-solution/
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 Atlantic-large).
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.
http://www.peering-forum.eu/assets/presentations2012/JunpierEPF7.pdf 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
10*10GE.
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.
Masataka Ohta
Current thread:
- Re: /. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now Masataka Ohta (Oct 01)
- Re: /. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now tom (Oct 01)
- Re: /. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now Mikael Abrahamsson (Oct 01)
- Re: /. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now Masataka Ohta (Oct 01)
- Re: /. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now Greg Hankins (Oct 02)
- Re: /. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now tom (Oct 01)
