Is That An OC-768 In Your Pocket? 128
bdigit writes: "Qwest communications using Nortel Networks OC-768 was able to transfer 40Gbps over 435 miles(700 km) breaking the record for the fastest land speed record. Qwest has plans to begin deploying OC-768's in quarter three of 2001." Note: if they need beta testers, just lemme know! I can write a mean bug report ("My pr0n is only getting 30gps! Please fix!")
Be thankful for what you have. (Score:1)
Re:Mmmm, bandwidth. (Score:3)
This message posted by CmdrTaco via U.S. Post Office.
Or more accurately (Score:1)
Re:Explain the OC & T numbers? (Score:1)
Re:question... (Score:1)
Re:Of course he has no idea. (Score:1)
But...to get back to the point, DSL is a huge investment to the Service Provider, which is why the geographic area is carefully selected.
Re:Or more accurately (Score:1)
Take it from one who actually does the calculations.
Oh...and take a look at my tld...I'm not American
Re:Cable is worthless (Score:1)
Just like open access has so significantly increased the performance and reliability of DSL connections!
No filtered ports - that means any dork with a Linux box becomes a spam relay...I don't think open access is gonna stop that.
Static IP's - yep lets add ANOTHER layer of administration to the ISP - to track all of the IP addresses. What happens when network renumbering needs to be done, the ISP will have to call each user and have them switch IP addresses...
Better service? 99% of trouble in cable networks is in the distribution nodes between the local "hub" and your house - those are still owned by the cable company and guess who still has to fix them? Reference the current DSL situation for a prime example of how responsive the ILEC's are to fixing problems for CLEC's.
And of course, you'll be able to get AOL via open access - the fact that they are now in favor of open access is scary enough to me...
ZoneMan
oc-768 as a 'telco pipe' vs oc-768 as 'ip pipe' (Score:1)
Re:Impressive :) (Score:1)
Re:Missing something... (Score:1)
Works out to be about a 2'x2'x2' cube filled with DVD-Roms. Fits into the trunk of a Miata, I would think.
Boggles the mind.
Not for public consumption (Score:1)
OC-n = (n = STS-1 = 51mb) * 768 or 48 or 12 or 3 (Score:5)
T3 = 45mb. OC ( optical carrier ) is a BellCore
description of transmission in SONET networks. ( Synchronous Optical Network ).
The speed of OC-n is derived from the number of interleaved STS streams. STS-1 is 51mb per second
All OC-n rates ( lowest is OC-3 which sts-1x3 ) are derived from a multiple of this.
OC-768 = 768xSTS1 rate = 39168mb per second
OC-48 = 48xSTS-1 rate = 2448mb per second
OC-3 = 3xSTS-1 rate = 153mb per second
OC-n rates can be described as concatenated ( a fat pipe ). or Channelized whereby an OC pipe contains multiple channels ( STS payloads )each
of which can contain different payloads ( packets or atm cells ).
Oc-3c is a concat. fat pipe.
Oc-3 is a channelized pipe.
Re:Mmmm, bandwidth. (Score:3)
Re:Ummm, am i missing something? (Score:2)
there are only two things that get me hard bro - naked women that i'm about to have sex with and the 2.4.0 kernel - this article wasn't about either.
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
Re:Impressive :) (Score:1)
These repeaters use something called an optical pump. It's basically a high-powered silicon laser that's injected into doped silica fibre. The process of pumping injects energy into the fibre and because of some fancy physics it happens to do so in phase with the original signal.
The trouble with repeaters is that they're dumb. They'll amplify signal and noise equally.
--
Its the distance that makes it impressive (Score:3)
Getting OC-768 DWDM with all of its little tricks to run for such a long distance between end points makes the promise of bigger and better backbones a reality. There are a ton of technical problems keeping the leading and trailing edges of the pulses of every different wavelength of light from degrading and interfering, and somehow managing to recover all the signals at the far end. 700Kms covers most any reasonable distance in Europe.
It would be nice if
the AC
Re: Man with a Hat got a Tan (Score:1)
(and I just had to get a completely off-topic post in here somewhere, just because I wanna grow up to be an AC someday)
FedEx still the highest bandwidth (just) (Score:2)
From the useless stats dept.
40 Gbits/sec = 216 Terabytes in 12 hours.
If you put 1800 120GB DDS4 tapes in FedEx baggies you will move the same about of data (latency is not so good but that's not the point :-)
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a truck load of tapes.
It's about time! (Score:1)
30 gps pr0n? (Score:2)
Waddayaneed more than 30gps for? a realtime tomographic video of her insides?
Hey, I'd be glad to (Score:1)
Re: 30 gps pr0n? (Score:1)
Re:Or more accurately (Score:1)
So, don't look for prices on CO equipment to come down anytime soon. If anything, they will go up, due to the fact that consolidation in the telecom world is happening much faster than ever before.
Mmmm, bandwidth. (Score:2)
Utopia? Nah. Better? Yes.
How do they measure this??? (Score:1)
I'm just curious as to how they do this, does anyone know?
We will always need keyboards (Score:1)
Re:Impressive :) (Score:1)
More info inside Qwest (Score:3)
http://www.qwest.com/about/media/story.asp?id=2
They use a ruler... (= (Score:1)
Re:Grades of fiber? (Score:1)
Mikael Jacobson
Re:Ummm, am i missing something? (Score:1)
TDM doesn't do squat to increase bandwidth -- if your hard drive is 4.5G, how you partition it isn't going to give you any more than 4.5G. Light travels at a certain speed through glass fiber. One can turn that light on and off only so fast. In order to increase bandwidth, one would have to either turn the light on/off faster (very difficult) or start using more than one light in the same cable.
DWDM has practical limits in the photoreceivers. If the receiver cannot differentiate 730nm from 740nm... as selectivity increases, bandwidth increases proportionally.
Re:Not for public consumption (Score:3)
Yeah, it wouldn't be horribly expensive or anything for the cable company to rewire its entire system so that there is a dedicated line running from the cable company to each and every house it serves, now would it? And, surely, if it was, they wouldn't happen to pass that expense on to the customer, because they are decent people who don't care if they lose money, as long as the customer is happy, right?
That's not a meaningful measurement (Score:1)
Or are you just happy to C me? (Score:1)
Is there a way we can moderate headlines?
--
They actually hit 160 GBPS! (Score:1)
Of course that just sounds like some kind of compression system.
Not So (Score:1)
You have to count that in the measurement as well.
That's such "diskist" thinking :-) (Score:1)
BTW it would take 1000+ tape drives running at once to move that much data
Re:Impressive :) (Score:1)
--
Re:They actually hit 160 GBPS! (Score:1)
Re:We will ^not always need keyboards (links) (Score:1)
Re: 30 gps pr0n? (Score:1)
Re:Mmmm, bandwidth. (Score:1)
(read, ISP in growing pains)
Fastest record overall. (Score:2)
Convicts = New source of Slave labour for networks (Score:1)
To bad it's qwest.... (Score:1)
Now I'm not going to step out on a limb and say that my experence is the rule with Qwest, but doesn't everybody that's had anything to do with them have a horror story. I went to a smell tech school (10 points if you can figure out which ;-) ), and that school was a circuit customer of Qwest.
It was horrible. The router at the other end of the T-1's died, several times a week. They didn't recognize the school's circuit ID number. we had routing issues, links to other backbones died randomly, but wait!
As long as you were inside Qwest's network, it was very very fast.... so I guess it will fix all of Qwest's problems to make that network faster yet.
Re:Grades of fiber? (Score:2)
It has something to do with bran muffins and being regular... Try this one [google.com]
Re:How do they measure this??? (Score:1)
Re:How do they measure this??? (Score:1)
OK. First stop thinking in terms of computers and start thinking in terms of optical equipment.
To get 40G signals they would have to mux four 10G (OC-192) signals onto a fiber which could then be fed into the OC-768 system. And of course, to get the OC-192 signal, they would need OC-48 or OC-12 subtending equipment being fed by DS-3 sources.
Te get multiple 40G signals, they can do this miltiple times, or more likely they will just feed the same signal through the system on multiple wavelengths. It doesn't really matter as each wavelength is it's own "channel".
Re:Impressive :) (Score:1)
href="http://www.bandwidth.com">www.bandwidth.c
a thing as an OC-255. It looks out of place on their table, though
Dosn't that dilute the signal? (Score:1)
Won't Help Peering. (Score:1)
Consider for a second that the vast majority of Internet Consumers use providers other than Qwest (whether it be UUnet, IBI/Digex, whomever) and still need to cross through peering points to go from network to network. These peering points, in general, are limited to OC-3 bandwidth... (Sometimes you can get FastEther, but that rarer). What good is an OC-768 when the weakest links in your connection are OC-3s. It's like having a T-1 bridge two OC-48 networks... So while you're stuck at MAE East, the Qwest customer hitting www.qwest.com will see it come down in blazing speed. Oh, I'm sorry, the customer only has a T-1 anyway.
When they, and other providers, update those peering points to allow more bandwidth between providers, we can cut down on serious Internet bottlenecks. Until then, this OC-768 mess is worthless.
Re:Dosn't that dilute the signal? (Score:1)
So what your saying is you would dilute your beer with more beer. what type of beer are we talking about here?
Ahhh bandwidth (Score:1)
Re:Ahhh bandwidth (Score:1)
Here we go again:
I dunno... It's always nice that the end users have fat pipes, but you can't don't forget guys like me, who shell out a lot of cash to put up servers. Currently, I'm co-located at a local ISP, tycho.net. I've got a full 42U rack, 8 Amps of UPS/Generator protected power, and a 10mbps switched Ethernet segment. Of the 10Mbps, I can use 640K 24/7, and burst to full speed for about 65 minutes a day (Yes, the 950 Kilobyte per second downloads rule
Unfortunately, all that comes at a price: $750 a month (And I don't bring in $100K a year.)
Now chew on this this: for $50 a month, a DSL user who is close to their telco switch could easily suck my 640 dry, and I cant combat it in kind- I need the low latencies unavailable with sDSL, and the upstream bandwidth unavailable to aDSL. Even worse, someone using a work computer could pull the entire 10 megs, searching for movies, or dealing with files.
Because of this, I'm forced to setup 30 Kilobyte per second bandwidth limits on each user. It will only get worse when everyone installs DSL (Note that I'm not worried about the cable modem users - self limiting
Now, the flip side to this coin is that when fibre finally reaches the common household, greater connectivity will be reduced in price, though it still won't be as simple as the 56K days. This doesn't mean of course, that I will not appreciate DSL when it's finally installed at my house, but it does make things more interesting.
Oh, I still have 30U of space left, if someone wants to put up a box
Remind me to look before I leap.
Re:I'm not impressed (Score:1)
Re:Dosn't that dilute the signal? (Score:1)
No, just kidding, you wouldn't need more beer. See, a beer-optical pump would use regular water and the interaction of the pump water and the signal-bearing beer would be such that the output of the pump would be pure beer - not diluted, just more beer. A beer amplifier.
--
Re:Sisco is misinformed (Score:1)
Sisco is misinformed (Score:1)
Re:I'm a parent soon. I can hear myself saying... (Score:2)
Re:Impressive :) (Score:1)
Agilent Technologies is working on a solutio n [agilent.com] for switching these signals without them passing through an electronic switch, but I think repeaters are fundamentally electronic, if I'm not mistaken.
Re:We will always need keyboards (Score:1)
Perl is already a little like this (it was written by a linguist after all..) with the expression modifiers (ie some_expression if control_expression.
Coding in COBOL would be nowhere near as bad if you could speek it :)
But good typers can type faster than they can speek.. However unless your transcribing something, the input part is idle more often then the tinking part (be it code, or a letter to mom)... The thinking is the time consuming part.
Re:How do they measure this??? (Score:1)
SONET switches do not manipulate data streams in the same way as PC decodes IP packets. Special framing chips generate/decode the electrical stream which is the conversion of light to electrical. The chips decode the payload and send it to forwarding hardware which in turn sends to a backplane fabric and out to some other piece of similar hardware. Multiple custom ASICS provide a physical route for the data. At OC768 though the data stream is probably not touched at all just pure light to electrical job.
The transmission is diskless and ramless in this context, especially since the generator equipment is creating payloads in hardware.
Re:Impressive :) (Score:3)
Ain't quantum mechanics fun?
How T1, T3, and OC3 rates work. (Score:3)
Sure. I've been architecting an ASIC for an "edge router" for the last year, and I've had to live and breathe this stuff.
ENORMOUSLY simplified:
DSn (n= 1, 1C, 2, 3, 4NA) refer to data format standards. Tn (n= 1, 1C, 2, 3, 4NA) refer to standards for carrying those formats on wires. Similarly, STS-n and OC-n refer to the SONET standards for data formats and carrying them on an optical fiber, respectively.
These are standards for US/Canada. Japan is virtually identical (Jn; n=1,
For data only a few are in common use. These are:
Unchannelized T1/DS1
Unchannelized T3/DS3
STS-n/OC-n n=1, 3, 12, 24, 48,
The basic quantum of data is 8,000 8-bit bytes ("octets") per second (nicknamed a "DS0"). This is 64,000 bits per second, enough for one phone call. (Some phone equipment steals one bit out of the byte every 6 frames for signaling {ring, dialing, off-hook}, making one of the bits untrustworthy, which is part of why modems maxed out at about 56,000 BPS rather than 64,000.) And yes, that IS a decimal 8,000, not 8K.
DS1/T1 packs one bit of overhead and 24 bytes of payload into a 193-bit "frame". A T1 feed will typically be "unchannelized" - you get to use the 24 bytes. So the data rate is 1.544 Mhz, and you get to use 1.536 Mbps. For PPP the data will typically be HDLC packets, but some applications will use ATM cells (stuffed with packets fragmented according to the AAL5 standard). The data packaging and protocols will consume some of that remaining bandwidth.
(ISDN come in two flavors. One ("primary rate"?) uses a T1 but steals one of the 24 DS0s for signaling. The other ("base rate"?) is a format similar in style to a T1, but with the payload stripped down to 2 DS0 channels plus a narrow signaling channel. ISDN makes "digital phone calls" of DS0 bandwidth. Typical equipment can make multiple calls and use MultiLink PPP to combine them into a bigger pipe.)
Higher rates were originally designed to pack up and carry lower rates. A "channelized" DS2 carries 4 DS1s, a DS3 carries 7 DS2s (i.e. 28 DS1s). But if you buy a point-to-point DS3 you can also use it "unchannelized":
An unchannelized DS3/T3 runs at 44.736 MHz. One bit in 85 is used for overhead, and the rest are payload, so you get about 44.21 Mhz raw bandwidth. Again your typical PPP feed will use HDLC, but an ISP talking to a DSLAM will use ATM cells. If he expects to do voice-over-packet he might use the "PLCP mapping" of the ATM cells into the DS3 to trade away about 4% of the bandwidth to pass timing information to the DSLAM. (T1 clock rates are tightly synchronized, to keep the DS0s - which are the voice sampling rate - synchronized, preventing "clicks" in your phone. T3 rates are very accurate, but NOT tightly synchronized. A click every three days is acceptable. A click every few minutes is not.)
An OC-1/STS-1 has, per second:
- 8000 frames, each composed of
- 9 rows, each composed of
- 90 octets.
For a total bit rate of 51.84 Mhz. The first three octets in each row are used for overhead related to alligning and tranporting the data. The rest is payload. Depending on what the payload IS, perhaps one byte per row might be used for overhead there, as well.
The payload is allowed to "float" within the 87*9 non-overhead bytes of the framing structure, so that when it hops from one framing to another the box where it hops doesn't need a big buffer to get it alligned, and so things don't break if the boxes' clocks drift. Part of the 3-bytes-per-row overhead is a pointer showing where the start of the payload's frame is currently located within the STS frame.
You'll notice that the STS-1 rate is similar to the T3 rate, and that's NOT an accident. The SONET standard was designed to interface with the existing phone network, and the T3 was the layer where they started. One of the many possible payloads of an OC-1/STS-1 is a DS3. So for raw usable data rates think OC-1 = T3. You'll be dead on if it's carrying a T3, and real close if it's carrying something else.
An STS-n/OC-n is N times the STS-1/OC-1 rate, and carries N times the payload. Unlike the DSn hierarchy, which has separate standards for each layer, SONET defines a general mechanism for higher rates. So the particular rates that are of interest are the ones for which equipment manufacturers chose to build the equipment.
The format of an STS-n is just N STS-1s, with their framing alligned, interleaved by byte, i.e. the first byte from STS-1 number one, then the first from from STS-1 number 2, and so on for N bytes. Then the second byte from STS-1 nubmer 1, and so on forever.
There are two flavors of combining them. An STS-n/OC-n is N separate STS-1/OC-1 channels. An STS-nC/OC-nC is a single channel: There are still N STS-1 framing strucures, but a single payload is smeared out across all of them.
Re:Or are you just happy to C me? (Score:1)
No.
---
Table O' Bandwidth (Score:1)
Re:We will ^not always need keyboards (links) (Score:3)
DrEldarion wrote "They've already done experiements where they put electrodes on a guy and he was able to move a cursor around the screen just by thinking about it... (sorry, I forgot where I read that... no link :/ ) "
Here's some links to articles about that:
Also, a Slashdot article:
" Anyways, I'm sure that eventually you'll just have a DataJack in your head (just like in ShadowRun!) where you'll just plug in a cable and you're all set. "
Sounds like fun to me! ;-)
Impossible means no one's done it yet.
Re:We will always need keyboards (Score:1)
Re:Missing something... (Score:1)
I assume you're referring to a digital reproduction of the contents of the Library of Congress.
I sure hope you aren't transferring the books, or (heaven forbid) the actual Library! That would take at least a couple months.
Donny
Re:We will ^not always need keyboards (links) (Score:1)
Re:Ummm, am i missing something? (Score:1)
---
With SONET overhead it's 155, (Score:1)
Re:We will always need keyboards (Score:1)
Besides, I'd rather not talk for houres on end.
O, and and I know another one: try shouting move left, jump and shoot at the same time to your computer when playing UT. That'll teach you... something.
Re:We will always need keyboards (Score:1)
Need for last-mile improvements!! (Score:1)
Re:Be thankful for what you have. (Score:1)
I use its speed for streaming video and browsing the web with graphics (yes, I do like the graphics, and yes, I have tried using a text browse, did so for 3 months straight until I got off my ass and got a mouse so I could use X effectively). And I know you can browse the web with a 2400 baud modem, I did that for a long time too, but it's hell, especially with some of the bloat on many websites today.
I also use the speed so that I can do downloads within a reasonable length of time. I definitely transfer more in a day, disregarding web and my ftp server (for friends), than I could do with a 2400 baud modem.
And then I also prefer cable to modems since it costs about 20 bucks more for an always on connnection at many times the speed. 150/80 is pretty damn good for 50 bucks a month; I could probably do better with DSL, but I haven't had time to do the research on it in my area.
---
Re: (Score:1)
400 wavelengths (Score:1)
Re:We will always need keyboards (Score:1)
Re:We will always need keyboards (Score:1)
You forget that a keyboard is also a suboptimal control system for computer games. Joystics and similar specifically designed controls provide a much easier to use interface than the kludge job of setting up a keyboard to control your gameplay.
Re: 30 gps pr0n? (Score:1)
Re:question... (Score:1)
Re:Sisco is misinformed (Score:1)
I'm a parent soon. I can hear myself saying... (Score:5)
Missing something... (Score:4)
Impressive :) (Score:1)
6.4 terabits per second? 800,000,000 meg a second? That'd be rather impressive.
Anyways, I wonder how attenuation will be for these cables. Is 428 some miles the maximum? That's impressive compared the the meters measured for fiber optic. Can repeaters be installed to incresase the distance even if necessary? I could see this implemented around the world.
Who knows, maybe in a few years we'll be seeing oc-1024k's :-)
Yay, go future
Explain the OC & T numbers? (Score:1)
Can anyone explain to everyone here how the T1 & T3 and OC3 rates work? I know that OC3 vs. T3 is a difference in Digital only for OC...
We work at a small software company and just got a fraction T1 line in. So we did the math, knowing what a T1 can push. But we realized that a T3 wasn't only 3 times faster than a T1? It was much more. What is the difference? And while we're at it, maybe someone can explain what an OC3 gets vs. Napster's OC-48, and now with the OC-768?
I'd really appreciate it, and would love to know once and for all the correct answer so that we quit guessing around here. Thanks!
Rader
Re:Mmmm, bandwidth. (Score:4)
need for speed (Score:1)
Re:Explain the OC & T numbers? (Score:2)
Fastest single signal (Score:4)
Of course, as this part [webproforum.com] of a tutorial [webproforum.com] indicates that higher bitrates allow for fewer channels, getting 80 might not be possible, so we may just have to settle for `only' 160gbps.
---
Ummm, am i missing something? (Score:1)
This [slashdot.org] article was posted a little over a month ago about how the guys at Qwest did a hundred mile round trip at 40Gbs. Is this really that much more signifigant? It just seems to me that this is the
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
I'm not impressed (Score:1)
Qwest *not* the first to OC-768 (Score:1)
What's even better, if you're talking last mile, you should move to Manhatten, where Enkido has that OC-768 service within 200 feet of *anywhere* on the island (they have 3500 miles of fibre on the island). As with Qwest, they're carrying 40Gbps on a single lamba (wavelength), so they currently peak out at 6.4Tbps, although hopes of ever *routing* that are pretty low at this point.
question... (Score:1)
Re:Missing something... (Score:3)
---
Of course he has no idea. (Score:2)
Bruce
Re:When (Score:2)
bottm-line: broadband-services costs more money than consumers are willing to pay, and since this is a market-driven world, that will only change when either of two happens:
1. People are willing to pay more to get more
2. Prices on equipment drop
Re:Impressive :) (Score:3)
Actually, you'll never see OC-1024s. The n in OC-n is an integer, roughly equivalent to the number of DS-3s of bandwidth of the connection. For technical and historical reasons, n will always be 3*(2^x), where x is an integer.
Therefore, the next step up from OC-768 (n=3*2^8) is OC-1536 (n=3*2^9).