Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Networking The Internet Hardware

Terabit Ethernet Is Dead, For Now 140

Posted by samzenpus
from the slow-lane dept.
Nerval's Lobster writes "Sorry, everybody: terabit Ethernet looks like it will have to wait a while longer. The IEEE 802.3 Industry Connections Higher Speed Ethernet Consensus group met this week in Geneva, Switzerland, with attendees concluding—almost to a man—that 400 Gbits/s should be the next step in the evolution of Ethernet. A straw poll at its conclusion found that 61 of the 62 attendees that voted supported 400 Gbits/s as the basis for the near term 'call for interest,' or CFI. The bandwidth call to arms was sounded by a July report by the IEEE, which concluded that, if current trends continue, networks will need to support capacity requirements of 1 terabit per second in 2015 and 10 terabits per second by 2020. In 2015 there will be nearly 15 billion fixed and mobile-networked devices and machine-to-machine connections."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Terabit Ethernet Is Dead, For Now

Comments Filter:
  • Re:In other words (Score:5, Informative)

    by bersl2 (689221) on Thursday September 27, 2012 @06:11AM (#41475605) Journal

    No, unbounded latency. It'll happen, just not yet.

  • Re:Damn the summary (Score:5, Informative)

    by rufty_tufty (888596) on Thursday September 27, 2012 @06:44AM (#41475701) Homepage

    I realised I wasn't being clear about why they can't define the standard now and wait for the technology to catch up.
    A standard like this is always a trade off based on the currently available technology, How fast are your analogue transistors, how much processing power do you have to do forward error correction. How fast are your ADCs/DACs to do signal shaping? This determines things like which coding schemes can you use. Also what market needs this and what costs are acceptable, for example DWDM and all the associated costs is perfectly acceptable if fibre is comparatively expensive, however even though in the 90s that would have been the only way to do 10G now we have the capability to do it electrically; designing the spec too soon and guessing is a really bad idea. We don't know how 20nm and lower process nodes are going to behave well enough to predict what their characteristics will be when this technology reaches maturity, to get that wrong is to end up with a standard that either under performs or is over expensive.

    Put it another way, the processor architecture you would choose to achieve 80MFLOPS in 1976 is very different from the architecture you would choose in 2006. Telecomms has exactly the same concerns.

  • Re:Damn the summary (Score:4, Informative)

    by SternisheFan (2529412) on Thursday September 27, 2012 @06:53AM (#41475751)

    We need terabit Ethernet NOW, not in a decade.

    You know my 5 year old nephew keeps confusing need and want too. How much are you prepared to pay for this desire? If it will cost say 4 times greater per bit to implement Terabit with current technology do you still want it?

    I agree with you completely. Learning to seperate our 'wants' from our 'needs' can make all the difference in our 'consumer-driven' lives.

    I may 'want' that shiny new car, but I don't 'need' it. If I have a vehicle that meets my needs, I've learned to be grateful for having that. Coveting that 'new shiny' (new car, other person's money/spouse, phone or internet connection speed, whatever it is) can often lead a person down the road to ruin.

    In my experience, I know to be happy and grateful for what I have, and don't waste energy on what I don't have (yet). Of about half the people who win a lottery, 5 years later, they end up wishing they'd never heard about the lottery in the first place. Because it irrevocably changed their lives for the worse, and they realize too late that they were happier before they 'won'. Just my two cents.

    ---------------

    I am so smert! I am so smert..., I mean smart! - Homer Simpson

It is better to give than to lend, and it costs about the same.

Working...