I would agree with that. We've had gear with 40-gig ports for many years (>6)? Never found a CDN or transport network that would do 40.Many 40G hardware options never made a ton of economic sense in CDN land with shared ASIC lanes for 40G and 100G ports. Using anything 40G blocked the associated 100G port, which were more valuable overall. You also didn't want to create a massive shuffle later, so it made much more sense to just use the 100Gs. You gained flexibility in initial deployment at the cost of inflexibility down the road.Newer stuff that has a dedicated 100G per port, but can run at either speed, might actually help 40G deployment since it's just an optic swap. But 100G optic costs have come down enough I think most people are just going to go there.On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 8:20 AM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:I would agree with that. We've had gear with 40-gig ports for many years (>6)? Never found a CDN or transport network that would do 40.From: "Mark Tinka" <mark@tinka.africa>
To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2023 10:33:07 PM
Subject: Re: MX204 Virtual Chassis Setup
On 8/28/23 03:05, Mike Hammett wrote:
Well, or they simply found a potential deal on hardware that came with 40 gig ports. 40 gigs is still a lot of bits to a lot of people.
For internal use, sure.
But when connecting to another AS, the chances of them supporting 40Gbps in one or more places is inconsistent to slim.
Exchange points may be an exception.
Mark.