New Ethernet Standard — Both 40 and 100 Gbps 141
Artemis recommends a blog entry that does a nice job of summarizing the history and current state of the Higher Speed Study Group and the IEEE's next-generation Ethernet standard. "When IEEE 802.3ba was originally proposed [there] were multiple possible speeds that were being discussed, including 40, 80, 100, and 120Gbps. While there options were eventually narrowed down to just two, 40 and 100Gbps, the HSSG had difficulties [deciding] on the one specific speed they wanted to become the new standard... [T]wo different groups formed, one which wanted faster server-to-switch connections at 40Gbps and one which wanted a more robust network backbone at 100Gbps... Unable to come up with a consensus the HSSG decided to standardize both 40Gbps and 100Gbps speeds..."
In other news (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Better get used to the idea that HIGHS
Re:In other news (Score:5, Funny)
No. There is another.
Re: (Score:2)
/out
Re: (Score:2)
(Given that last link, expect the RIAA to become part of Homeland Security.)
The Japanese have gigabit with IPv6 to the home already, but this makes that look like dial-up in comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google's proposed free ad-supported wi-fi for SF is like 300 kilobits. Better than nothing, I'll grant, but the phone companies are pitching a screaming hissy fit over even that. Why on earth do you think Google can implement or is even interested in universal high-speed access?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't broadband defined as 2Mbps+ ? From what I've heard in my telco days, that was the speed threshold.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I like this definition:
Narrowband, Wideband, and Broadband
Narrowband is a transmission medium or channel with a single voice channel (with a carrier wave of a certain modulated frequency). Wideband is a transmission medium or channel that has a wider bandwidth than one voice channel (also with a carrier wave of a certain modulated frequency). Broadband refers to telecommunication that provides multiple channels of data over a single communications medium using frequency division multiplexing.
Through the Wires: Bandwidth [thinkquest.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:In other news, You are correct Broadband=2Mb/s+ (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, the USA ranks 20+ in telecommunications (we ain't #1), because of corporatist marketeer-spin to silly politicians.
AAMOMFF, the USA ranks #1 in international debt only. We're #1, We're #1, We're #1 in debtor nations. THANK GOD and POLITICIANS!
!HAVEFUN!
Re: (Score:2)
Defined by who ?
Cable Length (Score:5, Interesting)
40Gbps can be 1 meter long on the backplane, 10 meters for copper cable and 100 meters for fiber-optics. The 100Gbps standard includes specifications for 10 kilometer and 40 kilometer connections over single-mode fiber.
I'm seeing the 100Gbps used for infrastructure with its larger bandwidth and longer cable length while the 40Gbps would be used for datacenters, server rooms, etc. with its faster "connect" speeds (clarification on what exactly this would mean?).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'd also suspect that 40gbps will be a whole lot cheaper than 100gbps.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If not, then my worst suspicions are confirmed, screwed up cabling plans exist everywhere.
the AC
my monomode fibre from home to datacentre is 38Kms, 100GigE will soon be mine
Re:Cable Length (Score:5, Funny)
My mom's basement is HUGE!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
http://www.fiber-optics.info/articles/fiber-types
Re: (Score:2)
speed vs. robustness? (Score:2)
Why is the 40 Gbps one considered "faster" and the 100 Gbps one considered "more robust"?
Re:speed vs. robustness? (Score:5, Informative)
Adding both takes care of both groups of people.
Re: (Score:2)
If the answer is nothing, than this seems to be a pretty stupid move...
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
What beats me is why they are bothering with multimode fibre. The cost of st
Re: (Score:2)
That is just such complete nonsense. Firstly fibre is not "far" more expensive than copper, it is a bit more expensive. However look at the cost of a 10Gbps switch, and now tell me that the cost of fibre is prohibitive. If you can afford the switch you can sure as hell afford a few fibre patch leads. Not only that I bet it will be CX4 type Infiniband cables which are not cheap, and far more trouble in a rack than a fibre patch lead.
I'd be surprised if they did that—the biggest advantage of copper over fibre is that everyone still has it! If you're going to move to Infiniband (multi-coax) cables, you might as well go for fibre as you say...—
What beats me is why they are bothering with multimode fibre. The cost of stocking both types quickly outweighs the slight increase in cost for single mode.
There are plenty of places where it's practical and economical just stocking multimode fibre...
Re:speed vs. robustness? (Score:5, Informative)
In one word: cost. The 100Gb connection is limited to fibre optics, whereas the slower connection support copper. Fibre optics are still more expensive than copper. It should also be noted that backbones deal with more traffic than non-backbone networks. Think of the difference between inter-city high ways and local back streets and you should get the picture.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So does that mean that their either coated in ice or being dug up by MN/Dot [state.mn.us]?
great analogy, just one request (Score:2)
Then you can move onto normalization.
Thanks in advance.
Re: (Score:1)
Is it still true that fiber costs more than copper? Considering that copper's price
has long been at the point where thieves have been stealing copper plating off church
roofs, that is a shocking statement of the relative cost of fiber-optics.
Re: (Score:2)
The cabling is not the only thing that needs to be taken into account. Think of optic network cards, switches and routers, since none of the come cheaply.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Make sense?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:speed vs. robustness? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
As a general rule, Ethernet does not concern itself with routing protocols. It's to do with that whole "layering" thing you may have heard of. It's really quite popular in the world of networking.
And I would bet a whole lot of money that they a
Ars Technica? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Read all the gory details yourself (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.ieee802.org/3/hssg/public/july07/index
Read through the minutes [ieee802.org] (warning PDF) to get a summary.
Motion #4: Move that the HSSG adopt the following objectives in replacement of
existing HSSG objectives:
o Support full-duplex operation only
o Preserve the 802.3 / Ethernet frame format utilizing the 802.3 MAC
o Preserve minimum and maximum FrameSize of current 802.3 standard
o Support a BER better than or equal to 10-12 at the MAC/PLS service interface
o Provide appropriate support for OTN
o Support a MAC data rate of 40 Gb/s
o Provide Physical Layer specifications which support 40 Gb/s operation over:
- at least 100m on OM3 MMF
- at least 10m over a copper cable assembly
- at least 1m over a backplane
o Support a MAC data rate of 100 Gb/s
o Provide Physical Layer specifications which support 100 Gb/s operation over:
- at least 40km on SMF
- at least 10km on SMF
- at least 100m on OM3 MMF
- at least 10m over a copper cable assembly
Standards (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:1)
why ethernet? (Score:2)
Are there any other serious contenders which could/should be examined as a replacement for ethernet?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Token Ring (spitting) was only more efficient as compared to the original ethernet specification, with all of its collisions. Once we went to a switched architecture and reduced all conversations to two participants that advantage evaporated.
Remember this, being deterministically bad is still bad. Have you ever been on a ring with > 200 nodes? Don't.
Ethernet won because it was cheap. It beat token ring to switching. It beat everyth
Re: (Score:2)
Are you forgetting FDDI/CDDI [cisco.com]? As I recall, it was available before 100 Mbps Ethernet.
"The Fiber Distributed Data Interface (FDDI) specifies a 100-Mbps token-passing, dual-ring LAN using fiber-optic cable."
"Copper Distributed Data Interface (CDDI) is the implementation of FDDI protocols over twisted-pair copper wire."
Re: (Score:2)
See:
D. Boggs, J. Mogul, and C. Kent, "Measured Capacity of an Ethernet: Myths and Reality," WRL Research Report 88/4, Western Research Laboratory, September 1988. http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/boggs88measured.html [psu.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The big problem with ethernet's design was its "spew everything to everyone" mentality. In practice, this was fixed by good switches becoming almost as cheap as hubs.
The main alternative to ethernet was token ring, which works much like a meeting where you have big stick that's passed around, and only the person with the stick can talk.
Re: (Score:2)
Good advice for a meeting. Speak softly and carry a big stick...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
As I understand it there were problems with 1Gbp/s as first planned leading to jumbo frames
So we'll move on to Hyper and Monster frames as the tech speeds up. Going along with those will be Mini-Hyper and Mini-Monster frames, of course.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ethernet still is pretty lean. I can imagine an alternative to it, but it might not be worth the trouble, like the anyLAN stuff from a while back. We also still used TCP, but really dont need all the overhead it generates.
Re:why ethernet? Why not LocalTalk? (Score:1)
Are there any other serious contenders which could/should be examined as a replacement for ethernet?
Perhaps we should look toward a high speed LocalTalk or PhoneNet implementation?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
These newer versions of Ethernet apparently don't bother supporting CD. All links must be switched through a hub, period. The hub saves up your packet and prevents collisions, and forwards your packet onto the next link. The "Ether" and "Like Talking" aspect of Ethernet has been lost. Ethernet has become just another framing choice other than SONET, f
Looks like (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
You know, I wish people would make up their mind on these things. First we are being told that parallel is faster, then it's serial. Using hard drive interfacing here. What's it gonna be? Are we going to be told ten years from now the inline serial processing is faster? This is like these "nutritionists" telling us that eggs are bad for you and margarine is good. Later they come out with just the opposite. I guess I'll just keep what I have until it runs o
Re: (Score:1)
Parasitic Computing (Score:1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_computing [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
If CPUs are so fast that pushing the data to be executed elsewhere over a LAN is a performance hit then parallel processing will go out of style.
If networks are so fast that pushing data to be executed elsewhere over a LAN is a net perofrmance gain then parallel processing is back in style.
Right now, we're seeing some pretty damn fast CPUs with multiple cores. Once these gains show down and network gains increase you'll see parallel stuff everywhere again.
Re: (Score:2)
In that case the network has it's own dedicated nodes, so yes, the network is the computer!
nice increase (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll be able to cook eggs on my Snort box.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose that this might make the node-to-CO link faster/cheaper, which would be good because it would raise the amount of actual capacity that the ISPs have to oversell, meaning that when everyone else in your neighborhood is trying to get online and play WoW, there's still some bandwidth left
Edit much? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
OT: Close to 2,000,000 posts! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OT: cid=20000000 (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
each one contains :
We can't find a comment with that ID (20000000)
i'm too lazy to keep looking
excellent! (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
10 gig still not totally utilized... (Score:2)
If you are the type to do the numbers and get a MB with sufficent bus speed. Buyer beware. The lack of speed may not be obv
Nothing new (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
And who exactly do you think is going to make a motherboard with a 40Gb Ethernet connection in the next 5 years? Are there any motherboard designers who were dropped on their heads as babies?
Stevens (Score:1)
I want one for my home! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Cheap fast optical networking? (Score:2)
Cheap high speed optical chips: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07
Flexible, robust optical cables: http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=41171 [theinquirer.net]
Adhocnet (Score:2)
We can string backbones using standard ethernet, at these speeds. We can use radio to bridge gaps. As I understand it, using copper across open outdoor spaces is electrically mad, so optical cabling is necessary, but the cost is dropping. We can run our own naming system. As for file sharing piggies, they can be screened out. We need a simple communication system that isn't under the boot.
Let's face it, the corporations and the moral police have taken over t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:'HSSG'? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:'HSSG'? (Score:5, Informative)
No. It's High Speed Study Group. In IEEE 802 this makes a huge difference.
A study group studies and recommends what standards are to be written by a Working Group (in this case, the WG is 802.3). They do this by arguing for a while then drafting a scope and purpose for the new spec (you'll find this in the first few pages of each IEEE spec). This is sent up the hierachy (the IEEE 802 EC (executive committee) and IEEE SA NESCOM (IEEE Standards Association New Standards Committee)The Working Group then goes off and writes the spec if the EC and NESCOM approve the PAR (Project Authorization Request).
So the HSSG is not a standards writing group at all, it is a bit of pre work to decide what work is going to be done. Arguing over link speeds is exactly the sort of arguing it is chartered to do.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
never as is won't fit or never as in Ethernet crossover into ISDN never?
Re: (Score:1)
Can you imagine... (Score:1)
(I'm sorry... I just had to!)
Re: (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia, meme fails YOU!