Re: Copper 10 gigabit @ 15 metres
While there are some smitherings about 10GigE, there are technical reasons and market reasons it is not really ready for prime yet, that is not to say it's not going to happen, it is just not going happen now.
Some people are using it in the MAN and WAN now though.
While there are some smitherings about 10GigE, there are technical reasons and market reasons it is not really ready for prime yet, that is not to say it's not going to happen, it is just not going happen now.
Some people are using it in the MAN and WAN now though.
Exactly. At the EQIX/ASH GPF Telia and AOL both said they were using 10GE cross-connects for private peering. So that means at least 3-4 major networks are using them in production in a LAN, MAN or WAN environment. When you are aggregating lots of a GEs, there isn't really a great, cost-effective way to move all of these bits cost-effectively. nxOC48 is pretty cheap, but a little ugly if you need the bandwidth unchoked. 10GE is supposed to get there, but at a 10xGE price, not a OC192 type price. The real advantage of Copper 10G is that eventually you can deploy it to all the existing copper [inside] plants that people have currently deployed. Just like GE, it eventually just becomes tolerant enough to use existing wiring. I would be very happy if the first boxes that came out with these long range xenpaks were muxes that would take 10xGE -> 1x10GE -- this would solve the uplink problem from smaller gear in a heartbeat. Deepak Jain AiNET
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Deepak Jain wrote:
When you are aggregating lots of a GEs, there isn't really a great, cost-effective way to move all of these bits cost-effectively. nxOC48 is pretty cheap, but a little ugly if you need the bandwidth unchoked. 10GE is supposed to get there, but at a 10xGE price, not a OC192 type price.
The 4 port Xenpak blade for the 6500 is $20k (list), and the xenpaks are $4000 each (list). 10GE is going to drop steeply pricewise during first half of 2004 since Xenpaks will be maturing and volume go up both on the xenpaks and on blades. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
The backbone at the time of my original work that I participated in was 40Gits/in and 40Gbits/out unless that has changed 10GigE is not practical or cost effective if it is limited to local area's and provate connections. That doesn't mean from A design perspective that A cost effective solution has already been designed, the position of the market and the cost per megabit for most companies is not there, most companies now do 2.5Gbits bi-diectioonally for 5Gbits and barely use all of that. -Henry Deepak Jain <deepak@ai.net> wrote:
While there are some smitherings about 10GigE, there are technical reasons and market reasons it is not really ready for prime yet, that is not to say it's not going to happen, it is just not going happen now.
Some people are using it in the MAN and WAN now though.
Exactly. At the EQIX/ASH GPF Telia and AOL both said they were using 10GE cross-connects for private peering. So that means at least 3-4 major networks are using them in production in a LAN, MAN or WAN environment. When you are aggregating lots of a GEs, there isn't really a great, cost-effective way to move all of these bits cost-effectively. nxOC48 is pretty cheap, but a little ugly if you need the bandwidth unchoked. 10GE is supposed to get there, but at a 10xGE price, not a OC192 type price. The real advantage of Copper 10G is that eventually you can deploy it to all the existing copper [inside] plants that people have currently deployed. Just like GE, it eventually just becomes tolerant enough to use existing wiring. I would be very happy if the first boxes that came out with these long range xenpaks were muxes that would take 10xGE -> 1x10GE -- this would solve the uplink problem from smaller gear in a heartbeat. Deepak Jain AiNET
At the risk of over simplifying this. 1) Deploying anything 4x faster than what you need is not cost-effective, ever. Even deploying GE where 2xFE would work is more expensive. 2a) If (again, thinking IXes here) you are offloading most of your locally sourced traffic to peers at an IX, you may be able to use >OC48 connect speeds without needing your backbone to actually pass 20+Gb/s. Everyone has a different network design, so it really depends. Guys who push can use 10GE sooner (IMO) than guys that pull because of the IX case here. b) Cable networks and networks where most of the traffic is internal or to a few large peers could benefit here too. 3a ) Anyone who doesn't have 5Gb/s of aggregate traffic probably doesn't have the peer density to send more than 2Gb/s to a single IX or peer anyway. (see #1). b) In the case where at a single point you need more than 1-2Gb/s per peer, you may want to deploy 10GE or something similar because you have sufficient capacity to handle another peering location to fail entirely for an extended period of time without (hopefully) affecting bandwidth to your peer. There are some assumptions here, so YMMV. Fortunately, no one is requiring anyone to use this, yet... Deepak Jain AiNET -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Henry Linneweh Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 7:03 PM To: deepak@ai.net; Neil J. McRae Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson; nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: Copper 10 gigabit @ 15 metres The backbone at the time of my original work that I participated in was 40Gits/in and 40Gbits/out unless that has changed 10GigE is not practical or cost effective if it is limited to local area's and provate connections. That doesn't mean from A design perspective that A cost effective solution has already been designed, the position of the market and the cost per megabit for most companies is not there, most companies now do 2.5Gbits bi-diectioonally for 5Gbits and barely use all of that. -Henry Deepak Jain <deepak@ai.net> wrote: > > While there are some smitherings about 10GigE, there are > technical reasons and > > market reasons it is not really ready for prime yet, that is > not to say it's not going > > to happen, it is just not going happen now. > > > > Some people are using it in the MAN and WAN now though. Exactly. At the EQIX/ASH GPF Telia and AOL both said they were using 10GE cross-connects for private peering. So that means at least 3-4 major networks are using them in production in a LAN, MAN or WAN environment. When you are aggregating lots of a GEs, there isn't really a great, cost-effective way to move all of these bits cost-effectively. nxOC48 is pretty cheap, but a little ugly if you need the bandwidth unchoked. 10GE is supposed to get there, but at a 10xGE price, not a OC192 type price. The real advantage of Copper 10G is that eventually you can deploy it to all the existing copper [inside] plants that people have currently deployed. Just like GE, it eventually just becomes tolerant enough to use existing wiring. I would be very happy if the first boxes that came out with these long range xenpaks were muxes that would take 10xGE -> 1x10GE -- this would solve the uplink problem from smaller gear in a heartbeat. Deepak Jain AiNET
Anyway before this becomes a bunch of different language, here is a page to keep you posted on 10GigE development and some of the players http://www.10gea.org/ Deepak Jain <deepak@ai.net> wrote: At the risk of over simplifying this. 1) Deploying anything 4x faster than what you need is not cost-effective, ever. Even deploying GE where 2xFE would work is more expensive. 2a) If (again, thinking IXes here) you are offloading most of your locally sourced traffic to peers at an IX, you may be able to use >OC48 connect speeds without needing your backbone to actually pass 20+Gb/s. Everyone has a different network design, so it really depends. Guys who push can use 10GE sooner (IMO) than guys that pull because of the IX case here. b) Cable networks and networks where most of the traffic is internal or to a few large peers could benefit here too. 3a ) Anyone who doesn't have 5Gb/s of aggregate traffic probably doesn't have the peer density to send more than 2Gb/s to a single IX or peer anyway. (see #1). b) In the case where at a single point you need more than 1-2Gb/s per peer, you may want to deploy 10GE or something similar because you have sufficient capacity to handle another peering location to fail entirely for an extended period of time without (hopefully) affecting bandwidth to your peer. There are some assumptions here, so YMMV. Fortunately, no one is requiring anyone to use this, yet... Deepak Jain AiNET -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Henry Linneweh Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 7:03 PM To: deepak@ai.net; Neil J. McRae Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson; nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: Copper 10 gigabit @ 15 metres The backbone at the time of my original work that I participated in was 40Gits/in and 40Gbits/out unless that has changed 10GigE is not practical or cost effective if it is limited to local area's and provate connections. That doesn't mean from A design perspective that A cost effective solution has already been designed, the position of the market and the cost per megabit for most companies is not there, most companies now do 2.5Gbits bi-diectioonally for 5Gbits and barely use all of that. -Henry Deepak Jain <deepak@ai.net> wrote:
While there are some smitherings about 10GigE, there are technical reasons and market reasons it is not really ready for prime yet, that is not to say it's not going to happen, it is just not going happen now.
Some people are using it in the MAN and WAN now though.
Exactly. At the EQIX/ASH GPF Telia and AOL both said they were using 10GE cross-connects for private peering. So that means at least 3-4 major networks are using them in production in a LAN, MAN or WAN environment. When you are aggregating lots of a GEs, there isn't really a great, cost-effective way to move all of these bits cost-effectively. nxOC48 is pretty cheap, but a little ugly if you need the bandwidth unchoked. 10GE is supposed to get there, but at a 10xGE price, not a OC192 type price. The real advantage of Copper 10G is that eventually you can deploy it to all the existing copper [inside] plants that people have currently deployed. Just like GE, it eventually just becomes tolerant enough to use existing wiring. I would be very happy if the first boxes that came out with these long range xenpaks were muxes that would take 10xGE -> 1x10GE -- this would solve the uplink problem from smaller gear in a heartbeat. Deepak Jain AiNET
participants (4)
-
Deepak Jain -
Henry Linneweh -
Mikael Abrahamsson -
neil＠DOMINO.ORG