| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
I think
Rich brings up a valid point. Sometimes
it seems that the engineering of these technologies is a bit out of sync with
their real use. I can remember hearing
just a few years ago that GigE would only be used for major backbones and
servers were not likely applications for that much bandwidth. After all, who needed a connection faster
than FDDI or OC-3 anyway? Issues were
raised about interrupts, checksums, backplane speeds, etc and the majority
consensus seemed to concur. It sure appears
to me that bandwidth is consistently like closet space, if you have it, it gets
filled up. For example, we are today using
GigE Jumbo to move ~1TB/day @ 50-100MB/sec between just two machines for various
backup/disaster recovery purposes and it is growing by ~50+GB/month. This is just plain old accounting data on 1999-class
Unix machines with ~12Gbit/sec of I/O capacity. We are a not a large user of bandwidth when compared to most
other similarly sized companies I am aware of. The only
reasons we have any CSMA/CD in our Ethernet world are:
We would
run 99% of our connections Full Duplex if we could. In our case the need for new links with CSMA/CD has pretty much
vanished. I should think that since
there are no real uses for CSMA/CD in GigE, that this implies that 10GigE has basically similar requirements. These are now just point-to-point data pipes
with some form of single access flow control and classification system (VLANs,
Channel Aggregation, QOS, etc). This is
the new Ethernet and I would think that upward compatibility is the right path
not total upward and downward compatibility.
So what if it is not "Ethernet" anymore. I am glad my current vehicle doesn't use carriage lamps for
headlights and that it no longer resembles a horseless carriage. It is still my means of transportation. I do not need to agree personally that a
feature is useful to me, but if it is useful to a significant number of users,
then at least let them have a standard way of implementing each of them. I believe that Copper 10Gig and Jumbo Frames
and their cousins deserve a standards based implementation plan for the market
to use and let that same market choose the features they need. This will determine the next step in Ethernet
networking evolution. The IEEE I would think,
is called upon to act as a guide and overseer that can keep the market out of
the gutters when it comes to technology, but not as the decision maker for what
the business world wants, anymore than the business world would want to define
all the specs for the encoding schemes or interconnect pathways. It seems to be a necessary partnership. Without businesses, there would be no need
for these devices and few funds available to create them. Without IEEE and all the engineers, we would
still be using the Pony Express and quill pens. OK, so
maybe I am oversimplifying things a bit, but I believe a robust workable standard
with a few extra definitions we might not use the way they were anticipated is
better than a religious or minimalistic approach where we are bumping in the to
the lack of standardization as an obstacle, while clinging to the past work of
others. I am constantly amazed at the
technology we have today, but I would think we should strive improve much of it
as we learn. Since I cannot predict the
future it seems wiser to leave it open enough to not get in the way without allowing
such lax controls that anarchy reigns. More
ramblings from the Midwest, -Corey
McCormick -----Original Message----- > Jim Tatum writes: FWIW, I agree that 10G across CAT-6 or
other twisted pair would be very This performance was demonstrated in 1998
using a 25GHz bipolar chipset. A Copper PHY was voted down by the
committee because it was thought that kind regards, |