Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

What Would You Do With a 92 TBps Router?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the hope-they-changed-the-passwords dept.

enodev writes "Cisco announces today it's new 'Carrier routing system' For a price tag starting at $450,000 it's able to route up to 92 Tbps. It also features IOS-XR and the first optical OC-768c/STM-256c optical Interface." update changed TBps to Tbps and suddenly things seemed less cool ;)

20 of 344 comments (clear)

  1. I know exactly what I'd do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I begins with 'p' and ends with 'r0n'.

    1. Re:I know exactly what I'd do by savagedome · · Score: 5, Funny

      ends with 'r0n'

      Not to be picky but it starts with r0n and ends with Jeremy :D

      *ducks*

      --


      Free XBox, PS2
  2. More info.... by Mz6 · · Score: 5, Informative
    Well, I was going to comment and see what, if anything, Juniper Networks was going to come out with but I found a NYTimes article to answer it otherwise. Here's a snippet:

    "Juniper Networks has individual routers that are at least as fast, but the company cannot combine as many routers to ultimately produce the same speeds, according to Chris Nicoll, a telecommunications industry analyst with Current Analysis, a research firm."

    and more....

    "The new router design is the first developed by Cisco that allows several routers to be connected, according to the company. A single router would be able to transmit data at 1.2 terabits a second. But as many as 72 routers can be hooked together to send data at 92 terabits a second, far faster than any router sold now. In telecommunications, data transfer is usually measured in bits per second. A terabit is one trillion bits. "

    --
    Hmmm.
    1. Re:More info.... by Rhubarb+Crumble · · Score: 5, Funny
      "The new router design is the first developed by Cisco that allows several routers to be connected, according to the company. A single router would be able to transmit data at 1.2 terabits a second. But as many as 72 routers can be hooked together to send data at 92 terabits a second, far faster than any router sold now."

      I have this weird image of a pile 72 routers being daisy-chained serially, with the insanely grinning salesman standing next to it saying "Look! If you connect them to each other they go twice as fast! It goes up to 11!"

      Now that gold-plated high-speed modem cable will finally come in handy!

  3. what would I do? by mrhandstand · · Score: 5, Funny

    Route traffic.

    --
    Always value the individual over the system. --Bruce Lee "I don't need a Sig - I have a custom 191" - me
    1. Re:what would I do? by ScottGant · · Score: 5, Funny

      I have a Linux machine and a WinXP machine that my wife uses. I'd probably use it to link them up. It would probably be faster than my Linksys router I'm using now.

      It could probably even take another computer on it too...but I wouldn't want to push it.

      --

      "Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
  4. I would by Achoi77 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sell it for $450,000. Then get a house.

  5. What Would You Do With a 92 TBps Router? by perrinkog · · Score: 5, Funny

    "What Would You Do With a 92 TBps Router?"

    Pinky : "Gee, Brain what do you want to do tonight?"
    Brain : "The same thing we do every night Pinky. Try to take over the world!"

    --
    (Karma = auto -1)
  6. Re:I would... by Rosyna · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yeah, is there any other thing to do with that much bandwidth? You could get porn at such high resolution you can see the ingrown hairs on the porn "actress'" butt.

    "My bunghole itches. Is it because I am a girl?"

  7. Careful by choas · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now you guys please be careful not to /. Cisco :)

    --
    I will work to elevate you, just enough to bring you down
  8. Terabits, not terabytes by jfengel · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's a small point, but the article calls it 92 Tbps, not 92 TBps. Which means its really 19 terabytes per second, which works out to some ungodly number of libraries of congress per fortnight. Either way, it's a lot.

    1. Re:Terabits, not terabytes by prescot6 · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...the article calls it 92 Tbps, not 92 TBps. Which means its really 19 terabytes per second.

      Psh.. only 19 terabytes? I _was_ excited, but now...

      :)
  9. slashdot by kjeldor · · Score: 5, Funny

    I would...
    for the first time ever...
    *gasps*
    attempt to slashdot slashdot.

  10. With a 95% confidence level, by gutterandthestars · · Score: 5, Funny

    90% of posts will be 1.1 standard deviations away from one of the following:

    0. "fist pr0st!!!!!111~"
    1. "92TBps of pr0n!!!"
    2. "Imagine a beowulf cluster of these!"
    3. "I for one welcome our OC-768c/STM-256/optical Interface overlords!"
    4. "1. OC-768c 2. STM-256 3. ... 4. PROFIT!!!"
    5. "If IOS is based on unix, does that mean Cisco will have to pay SCO for licenses?"
    6. "I use BNC you insensitive clod!"
    7. "emacs does this

    1. Re:With a 95% confidence level, by mooingyak · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think you forgot:

      "All of your routers are belong to us"
      and
      "In Soviet Russia, traffic routes you"

      You nailed the rest of the cliches I can think of though.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
  11. Re:After Much Deliberation.... by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 5, Funny

    You know, each time I see some guy driving one those cars I can't help feeling sorry for him for the size of his "router".

  12. How do you test it? by Boyceterous · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How do they go about testing the full capacity for these? Would a customer ever know if was not quite getting full throughput?

  13. Top 10 by darnok · · Score: 5, Funny

    10. Tell all my mates. Note the names of the one or two who don't laugh at me, and remember to send them, and only them, Xmas cards this year

    9. Get a really really fast sniffer, so I can make sure there's no porn traffic going through my router

    8. Write out 92Tb as a decimal number, just because I know it'll look really impressive

    7. Use it to pick up chicks. Revert to old story about being in astronaut training program, as it would be just as successful and slightly less geeky

    6. It's optical, right? See what happens when I cross the beams...

    5. Sleep with it under my bed. Less painful than a vasectomy, and probably just as effective

    4. Paint go-fast stripes on it, put a "Turbo" sticker on it, then track down and razz anyone who spent $450k on the "old, non-turbo version" by mistake

    3. Use it to beat the living daylights out of everyone associated with "Big Brother". I really really hate that show

    2. Advertise it on eBay with a photo, no reserve, and a description of "some sort of computer network thingy"

    1. Buy 2 and see if they'll reproduce in captivity

  14. Re:STM256! by vyzar · · Score: 5, Informative

    You can be sure it will actually be STM-256c as opposed to plain vanilla STM-256.

    Almost NO datacomms equipment manufacturers support the non-concatenated versions of SDH above STM-1. I have bitten in the past by companies that said they support STM-4 when they actually meant STM-4c. And of course at the time the telcos only support STM-4 and NOT STM-4c.

    I suspect that the STM-256 support will be the same.

    (For the uninitiated STM-4 is a straight multiplexing of 4 STM-1s, each with their own header and payload sections. STM-4c is essentially one big STM channel with a single header section and a single concatenated payload section. STM-256c just extends this principle to more insane capacities).

  15. Longhorn Requirement by cylcyl · · Score: 5, Funny

    In other news, MS says such routers need to be installed in every home to allow the downloading of Longhorn patches.