RE: [10GBASE-T] Economic feasibility
doesn't address market. Broad market potential does.
If one bases the
broad market potential on connecting aggregation elements, the economic
feasibilty argument should show the technology has feasibility for that market.
If one bases broad market potential on desk top, then it better have economic
feasibiity for that market (which requires lower cost than the aggregation
The 5 criteria and
objectives aren't each isolated items. They need to be consistant with each
other. If they aren't, one is likely to produce a standard that doesn't get
With 10GBASE-T, I
don't think either of those is the basis for broad market
If we are
successful, then some 10GBASE-T will be used for aggregation interconnects, but
most of the aggregation will be of a distance that requires fiber or within the
closet at short enough distances for CX-4. I don't think the niche between those
two in the aggregation interconnects space is big enough to
justify broad market potential. 10GBASE-T will presumably be too expensive
for desktops for some time and it will be quite a while before desktops
need 10 Gig. Also, there isn't much point in putting a 10 Gig adapter into
a desktop until desktops start having PCI Express slots (or
one of the other high speed alternatives).
market where 10GBASE-T will be very useful initially is the data center to
connecting servers and, with the help of iSCSI and other IP storage initiatives,
technical feasibility and economic feasibility should address the needs of that
I would like to point at the Economic
- Cost factors known, reliable data
Reasonable cost for performance expected
- Total installation costs
None of these are concerned with how many units will be sold
or whether there will be payback on development costs, etc. I think the word
Economic is being misinterpreted in the present discussion.
the need for 10Gig arises from increasing data speeds and volume. With
1000BASE-T about to be rolled out to desktops, the aggregation network
elements need to go faster. That's the way it has worked at previous levels;
why not now?
And if not, why was the ae standard created and adopted with
four different PHY's?