Slashdot Mirror
Cisco Introduces a 322 Tbit/sec. Router
CWmike writes "Today Cisco Systems introduced its next-generation Internet core router, the CRS-3, with about three times the capacity of its current platform. 'The Internet will scale faster than any of us anticipate,' Cisco's John Chambers said while announcing the product. At full scale, the CRS-3 has a capacity of 322Tbit/sec., roughly three times that of the CRS-1, introduced in 2004. It also has more than 12 times the capacity of its nearest competitor, Chambers said. The CRS-3 will help the Internet evolve from a messaging to an entertainment and media platform, with video emerging as the 'killer app,' Chambers said. Using a CRS-3, every person in China, which has a population just over 1.3 billion, could participate in a video phone call at the same time. (Or you could pump nearly one Library of Congress per second through the device, or give everyone in San Fransisco a 1Gbps internet connection.) AT&T said it has been using the CRS-3 to test 100Gbit/sec. data links in tests on a commercial fiber route in Florida and Louisiana."
MSRP starts at $90,000. source
In any case, I thought MP3 songs were the new benchmark for capacity.
Naw, that was sooo 2000. And by 2004 we'd already abandoned that and gone to DVD rips. We're currently at bluray 720p rips, with 1020p knocking loudly.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
read here
If it's anything like the CRS-1 (and apparently it is), then it won't matter what you turn on, you'll still be able to pass line rate traffic. After reading all the marketing, I think the real number people should be focusing on is 4.48Tbps for one chassis. You can't get up to 322 Tbps unless you go to a larger configuration (more than one chassis). However, I think 224 10GE should be a good starting point for this configuration, and still puts other routers to shame.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2680/4406738473_f7949d8a7f_o.jpg
My grandmother used anecdotal evidence all the time, and she lived to be 120 years old.
Model Comparison
Detailed Specs
Disagreeing with me does not mean you get to mod me troll.
(been lurking for 8+ years, figured I ought to post someday)
LOL
exactly
try $90k times (322/1.12) + tax
=
$25.875 MILLION
source:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps5763/prod_models_comparison.html
No it isn't. It's very large, but not infinite. Only a certain range of wavelengths will propagate through the fibre with sufficiently low attenuation, giving a finite bandwidth for transmission, which limits the speed at which the signal can be changed. DWDM just uses this capacity in a different way, it can't increase it. Shot noise puts a theoretical lower limit on the minimum optical power needed at the receiver.
We're talking hundreds of terabits per second IIRC, but still finite.
What is the limit of a fibre cable?
Alcatel-Lucent demonstrated 25.6 Terabit/s in 2007 using 160 Wavelength-Division Multiplexed channels of 160 Gbps each.
Based on a brief look at Cisco.com, it looks like the CRS-3 scales from a single 4-slot chassis up to an 1192-slot multiple-rack array, so the amount of backplane capacity you get depends on what size chassis and how many chassis you want to chain together, as well as what flavors of interface cards you put in them. (A lot of the processing capacity is on the cards, which is how you get things to scale to carrier-class.) The small box is going to have supervisor CPUs and probably control-plane, and you'll presumably want redundant power supplies of some sort (though that may be DC if you're in a carrier environment), and probably a couple of GigE interfaces on the supervisor card, but it's not the kind of platform you buy without buying some hefty interface cards, which is where most of your money'd be going.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Deep inspection is done at the edges.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.