Slashdot Mirror
New Ethernet Standard — Both 40 and 100 Gbps
Artemis recommends a blog entry that does a nice job of summarizing the history and current state of the Higher Speed Study Group and the IEEE's next-generation Ethernet standard. "When IEEE 802.3ba was originally proposed [there] were multiple possible speeds that were being discussed, including 40, 80, 100, and 120Gbps. While there options were eventually narrowed down to just two, 40 and 100Gbps, the HSSG had difficulties [deciding] on the one specific speed they wanted to become the new standard... [T]wo different groups formed, one which wanted faster server-to-switch connections at 40Gbps and one which wanted a more robust network backbone at 100Gbps... Unable to come up with a consensus the HSSG decided to standardize both 40Gbps and 100Gbps speeds..."
Major telcos has increased the upload speed to 800k at a cost for only $70.00 a month.
40Gbps can be 1 meter long on the backplane, 10 meters for copper cable and 100 meters for fiber-optics. The 100Gbps standard includes specifications for 10 kilometer and 40 kilometer connections over single-mode fiber.
I'm seeing the 100Gbps used for infrastructure with its larger bandwidth and longer cable length while the 40Gbps would be used for datacenters, server rooms, etc. with its faster "connect" speeds (clarification on what exactly this would mean?).
><));>
I'm normally not one to do this, but the article linked is nearly identical to the coverage over at Ars Technica. It seems that only a few words were changed and without even a link to the original ars article.
Slashdot: where repeating an article in a post is "+5 Insightful"
You misunderstand; one group said "We need to connect our servers to the switches with a faster connection." The other group said "we need to make our network backbone more robust by adding faster connections between buildings and such." The group that needed faster server-switch speeds don't need 100Gbps, they just need better than what they've got. The group that needed faster building-building/infrastructure links didn't believe 40Gbps is fast enough.
Adding both takes care of both groups of people.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
If you want all the gory details rather than a copy of a summary of a summary, here is a link to all the presentations at the meeting.
. html
http://www.ieee802.org/3/hssg/public/july07/index
Read through the minutes (warning PDF) to get a summary.
Motion #4: Move that the HSSG adopt the following objectives in replacement of
existing HSSG objectives:
o Support full-duplex operation only
o Preserve the 802.3 / Ethernet frame format utilizing the 802.3 MAC
o Preserve minimum and maximum FrameSize of current 802.3 standard
o Support a BER better than or equal to 10-12 at the MAC/PLS service interface
o Provide appropriate support for OTN
o Support a MAC data rate of 40 Gb/s
o Provide Physical Layer specifications which support 40 Gb/s operation over:
- at least 100m on OM3 MMF
- at least 10m over a copper cable assembly
- at least 1m over a backplane
o Support a MAC data rate of 100 Gb/s
o Provide Physical Layer specifications which support 100 Gb/s operation over:
- at least 40km on SMF
- at least 10km on SMF
- at least 100m on OM3 MMF
- at least 10m over a copper cable assembly
I wonder if it has something to do with latency. Maybe the 40Gb connections are faster because they have a simpler routing protocol or they use smaller packet sizes with no CRC. I haven't been able to get through to the actual proposed spec yet, so it's hard to say...
Just junk food for thought...
What does the 40Gb standard have that the 100Gb standard doesn't cover?
In one word: cost. The 100Gb connection is limited to fibre optics, whereas the slower connection support copper. Fibre optics are still more expensive than copper. It should also be noted that backbones deal with more traffic than non-backbone networks. Think of the difference between inter-city high ways and local back streets and you should get the picture.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
You must be... no, you're definitely new here.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
>High Speeds Standards Group. How hard is it to read the summary? Slashdot: where people don't only RTFA, they don't RTFS.
No. It's High Speed Study Group. In IEEE 802 this makes a huge difference.
A study group studies and recommends what standards are to be written by a Working Group (in this case, the WG is 802.3). They do this by arguing for a while then drafting a scope and purpose for the new spec (you'll find this in the first few pages of each IEEE spec). This is sent up the hierachy (the IEEE 802 EC (executive committee) and IEEE SA NESCOM (IEEE Standards Association New Standards Committee)The Working Group then goes off and writes the spec if the EC and NESCOM approve the PAR (Project Authorization Request).
So the HSSG is not a standards writing group at all, it is a bit of pre work to decide what work is going to be done. Arguing over link speeds is exactly the sort of arguing it is chartered to do.
Evil people are out to get you.
>Yep, Token Ring was indeed more efficient. Good luck reviving it.
Token Ring (spitting) was only more efficient as compared to the original ethernet specification, with all of its collisions. Once we went to a switched architecture and reduced all conversations to two participants that advantage evaporated.
Remember this, being deterministically bad is still bad. Have you ever been on a ring with > 200 nodes? Don't.
Ethernet won because it was cheap. It beat token ring to switching. It beat everything else to get to 100Mbps. Now with 1Gbps and 10Gbps firmly entrenched in the market I look forward to deploying 100Gbps links.
Ethernet is (and was) better.
Dennis Dumont
P.S. I've already scavenged all of my lobe cables for their copper.