[c-nsp] new 8-port 10 G bade

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 08:31:20PM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 09:28:29AM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
> > 	I think it's critically important for folks to continue to ask
> > Cisco (and your other vendors) for a 100GE solution.  IEEE process is a
> > bit odd, so could possibly stall.  If that's the case, us "nsp-types"
> > may need to band together and have a SP nonstandard 100GE bakeoff.
> 
> At the risk of not being on the "we need more bandwidth now!!!" bandwagon, 
> I don't understand why people think 100GE is so critically important, and 
> why 40GE "just won't do at all". Parallel Nx10GE paths is a perfectly 
> viable way to scale a network given the commodity technology currently 
> available. Even given the 8 member limit that most vendors stop at 
> currently, can you honestly tell me you have links where you need more 
> than 80Gbps of capacity, and where a sensible architectre wouldn't call 
> for adding a diverse path, another trunk, or another router anyways?

Look at some existing internet exchanges (AMS-IX, DECIX, LINX) - these are 
hitting 30-40 Gbit inter-switch-traffic today, and growing 100 per cent 
per year.

Given the nature of IXPs, there isn't very much you can do with 
"Layer 3 balancing" - IXPs are L2 meshes, period.

So you need either

  - 40G/100G channels (on Ethernet switches)
  - more than 8 member links in 10G channels
    (plus switches that permit you to actually connect 16x 10G to a box
     without filling up most of the 10G ports you can have...)
  - more intelligent L2 switch meshing than STP

having none of that is a problem for IXPs.

gert
-- 
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
                                                           //www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany                             gert at greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025                        gert at net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de