Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

IEEE Launches 400G Ethernet Standards Process

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the just-go-straight-to-800 dept.

Networking 94

alphadogg writes "The IEEE this week launched a study group to explore development of a 400Gbps Ethernet standard to support booming demand for network bandwidth. Networks will need to support 58% compound annual growth rates in bandwidth on average, the IEEE claims, driven by simultaneous increases in users, access methodologies, access rates and services such as video on demand and social media. Networks would need to support capacity requirements of 1 terabit per second in 2015 and 10 terabit per second by 2020 if current trends continue, the organization says."

cancel ×

94 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Too fast (0)

pcjunky (517872) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336139)

Even SSD drives couldn't send data fast enough for this. Most of my customers still use 100baseT. Some have upgraded to gigabit. I see very little use for this outside of large data centers,

Re:Too fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43336171)

I assume this is for Internet switching, nothing more.

Most household devices can't even use the full potential of 1Gbps.

Re:Too fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43341497)

Gigabit ethernet isn't for people who use the full potential. Gigabit ethernet is for people who use 101mbps or more.

Re:Too fast (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43336173)

It says networks need to support it not individual machines.

Re:Too fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43336189)

"Too fast" you use 100base T nice for you but the backbone routers you use whene you use Internet, desperately need that to avoid 10Ge aggregation.

Re:Too fast (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336199)

When it comes to end users, gigabit is good for users that need to move large files, but 100baseT is plenty for the majority of desktop connections. I have many users that wouldn't notice if they were on a 10mb link because all they do is email and access a few lightweight browser-based apps.

However, on the server side of things, we struggle with only having gigabit. Unless you have a full mesh network, you need to think in terms of core enterprise infrastructure where the backbone could be handling transfers between dozens or hundreds (or thousands) of devices simultaneously. Once you get a few hundred servers talking, I bet you could saturate a 400gbps link pretty quickly. It's not intended for connecting to every single desktop PC out there.

Re:Too fast (3, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336263)

It also remains to be seen whether the IEEE wants to go after some of the non-ethernet interconnects with this one, to try to get ethernet into use for larger-than-single-chassis interconnection of things that are usually confined to single boxes and 'internal' busses.

Your end user probably doesn't even need 1GbE; but his boring cheapo desktop probably has an 8(if 2.0) or 16(if 3.0) GB/s PCIe connector available for adding a graphics card. Hypertransport or QPI are faster still.

If one had the desires of people building larger-scale closely interconnected systems in mind, a very, very, very fast flavor of ethernet(with convenient ethernet features not generally available on internal busses, like the more sophisticated switching and routing capabilities); but enough speed to serve as an interconnect for a rack full of blade modules with virtualized storage and networking, or NUMA across all blades, or both, could be quite handy.

Such features have been available for a while in proprietary busses from the very expensive supercomputer outfits; but the IEEE may be looking to move in to that area with at least certain flavors of ethernet....

Re:Too fast (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#43337493)

You seem to be forgetting about entertainment.

An HD video can be quite large. You start getting many people downloading or streaming them, and pretty soon you are going to need huge bandwidth.

Re:Too fast (1)

cheater512 (783349) | about a year and a half ago | (#43341179)

Soon 100mbps will be dead in Australia at least.
With 50mbps and 100mbps internet plans readily available you'd need gigabit at least to avoid the internet slowing down your network or vice versa.

Re:Too fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43336299)

There is no such thing as too fast. SSDs will increase in speed and will be able to use 400 gigabit soon enough.

Re:Too fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43336365)

There is no such thing as too fast. SSDs will increase in speed and will be able to use 400 gigabit soon enough.

Exactly. Besides, we have enough "ought to be enough for anybody" memes floating around from famous last words within this space.

Re:Too fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43336323)

Even SSD drives couldn't send data fast enough for this. Most of my customers still use 100baseT. Some have upgraded to gigabit. I see very little use for this outside of large data centers,

No such thing as too fast. Just because you can't use it, doesn't mean others can't.

I'm guessing the first deployments for this (when it's finally ratified) will be in Internet exchanges (IX) where ISPs will want it to connect to other ISPs and to content providers (e.g., YouTube, Netflix, Vimeo). I'm sure the Amazon AWS folks would like it to connect to the IXes at faster speeds as well. Faster connections between IXes would also be handy.

DE-CIX is averaging 1300 Gb/s, with peaks of 2200, as of November:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_exchange_points_by_size

This will take about 3-5 years to ratify and get products out, so by then it will have gone from "nice to have" to "we need this now".

Re:Too fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43336343)

Stick to doing desktop support bruh.

Re:Too fast (1)

gunnaraztek (1077439) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336429)

Which makes this perfect for datacenters...

Re:Too fast (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336515)

This is for enterprise and ISPs. Most of the equipment that uses this kind of bandwidth just splits it up and sends it on its way. Imagine the trunks that connect ATT to Sprint... They aren't going anything with the data but routing it. Check out this switch, and it's an old one: http://www.tech.proact.co.uk/foundry/foundry_bigiron_rx16_switch.htm [proact.co.uk]

What feeds that? Trunks like we're talking about here.

Re:Too fast (1)

pcjunky (517872) | about a year and a half ago | (#43339421)

This is what I'm talking about. These links will be buried deep inside infrastructure. Most of us will never see even one. How many of us have even seen a 10G link?

Re:Too fast (1)

Crazy Taco (1083423) | about a year and a half ago | (#43342831)

Most of us will never see even one. How many of us have even seen a 10G link?

I have. Many of you working in core IT will soon if you haven't already. They are all over the place in the heart of the biggest networks. This is because of the way common network architecture is done. Most networks at major corporations or institutions have a central core of some sort where all the VLANs run. That core is typically carrying traffic from most of the network segments all over the company. Sure, local traffic out at remote sites won't be going back there, but most of the server traffic in a headquarters datacenter will be running through a core like that. And when you have hundreds of servers hitting the core, nothing but 10G will cut it, which is why it is becoming so common in the heart of the corporate datacenter.

So it really comes down to what you do. On the client side you won't see this for a very long time, if ever, because most clients don't even use 100 MB in most circumstances. But it's all over for core corporate IT.

Re:Too fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43336667)

You say its not needed, except for the situations where it's needed. Congratulations. So I guess it's good they're developing a standard so those that need it can use it. Those large data centers are responsible for a *lot* of what people watch, play, and listen to on their PCs.

Re:Too fast (1)

div_2n (525075) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336785)

If you're trying to compare 100GigE and above to single SSD drives, then you don't operate in the technical space these speeds are built for at this time.

Even corporate backbones bump into bottlenecks on occasion and I assure you that top end SANs can easily push that much data over a single interface considering they might have hundreds of drive in a massive array with caching technology that can bump performance even higher. And that's not considering if the drives are SSDs themselves.

And that's not even discussing servers that might have Fusion-io cards or something similar in them allowing huge I/O speeds out of a single server.

Re:Too fast (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336797)

I would definitely have use for this, 1Gbps ain't nearly enough. 10Gbps would probably suffice, but those devices are horribly, horribly expensive and no one here in Finland seems to sell em for home-users at all.

Re:Too fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43336957)

And what makes you think the 400 gig devices are going to be any cheaper than the 10 gig?

There are very few 10 gig "home" devices anyway, it's probably going to be many years before there are any 400 gig "home" devices.

Re:Too fast (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336983)

And what makes you think the 400 gig devices are going to be any cheaper than the 10 gig?

You need to work on your reading-comprehension as I never said that. I only said that I'd have use for this. In fact I assume that 10Gbps devices will drop in price once 400Gbps hits the market.

There are very few 10 gig "home" devices anyway, it's probably going to be many years before there are any 400 gig "home" devices.

Doesn't negate anything I said.

Re:Too fast (1)

SilentStaid (1474575) | about a year and a half ago | (#43337069)

Even SSD drives couldn't send data fast enough for this. Most of my customers still use 100baseT. Some have upgraded to gigabit. I see very little use for this outside of large data centers,

1) Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons. - Popular Mechanics, 1949
2) I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won’t last out the year. - Editor of Prentice Hall business books, 1957
3) There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home. - Ken Olsen, 1977
4) We will never make a 32-bit operating system. - Bill Gates, 1989*
5) I believe OS/2 is destined to be the most important operating system, and possibly program, of all time. - Bill Gates, 1987


So... where do you think you rank? Source. [makeuseof.com]

*Of course, you could argue that they didn't "make" it.

Re:Too fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43337631)

Not sure if you're trolling or stupid. But I'll assume stupid. This isn't for end users, not today. This is to provide high speed interconnects for the Internet backbone.

Re:Too fast (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#43342893)

I don't think anyone is currently suggesting this for a connection to a single node. It would be used as a switch fabric and at some point likely as a long haul link.

Re:Too fast (1)

Sigg3.net (886486) | about a year and a half ago | (#43346009)

You do everything in RAM and on the GPU. Bitcoin mining here I come!

recent article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43336149)

/. just recently had an article about the Internet's energy needs starting to outpace demand. This might accelerate that imbalance.

Also, are the ISPs willing to put the resources into building such a network? NPR recently had a story about the obstinance of major ISPs to improving speeds in the U.S. compared to countries in Asia.

Re:recent article (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336741)

There are more and more options for fiber in the USA now. You may need to move, but there are options and in places with typically good job markets.

And nothing of value was added (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336193)

Is it me or is the amount of information, when I look back through the history of the internet, that I get out of the 'net pretty much the same, just the traffic goes up?

Is all that bandwidth really just wasted on shiny?

Re:And nothing of value was added (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336243)

Yes and no. Shiny is a big part of it, but look at what we're streaming live that we weren't five years ago. Netflix is the big 'un, but music services like Pandora eat their share too. Then we also have cloud services - Chrome OS being a prime example of exactly how much the cloud can do now. Games have hopped on the bandwagon too with always-on DRM or server-side processing. Many traditional PC tasks have been moved to the LAN or WAN. Even for users that still do everything on the desktop, backing up to the cloud has become a very popular option. We also need to consider that individual files are getting bigger too. It wasn't that long ago that a VHS quality movie file was around 300mb. Then we wanted DVD quality. Then Blu-ray quality. The file size just keeps climbing as we demand higher quality content - the same goes for pictures. I think audio files are the only things that haven't grown significantly in size.

On top of that, look at the number of devices. In the 90's, most households had a single Internet device (if any). By the early 2000s, many households had a second PC or laptop or even a third. By 2010, it was pretty common for each family member to have their own PC or laptop, plus a game console and possibly several smart phones. Now in 2013, Internet connected televisions and Blu-ray players are common on top of everything else. By 2020, Internet-connected home automation will probably be much more ubiquitous (it's already fairly common). Most of those devices use bandwidth even when not in use by a person - automatic patches, updating data, syncing with servers, etc.

It's a combination of many factors at once - more devices, higher quality data and more services in the cloud.

Re:And nothing of value was added (1)

cyclomedia (882859) | about a year and a half ago | (#43337973)

And next up is lossless. FLAC and PNG already have it covered for audio and photo but personally I'm itching for lossless video all the way from camera to eyeball and every transcoding, editing, transmitting and storage step in between. In 8k.

Re:And nothing of value was added (1)

Crazy Taco (1083423) | about a year and a half ago | (#43342911)

When we get to streaming 8k 3D lossless video to every person in the world, that is when the bandwidth rise will entirely flatten out. At least that's my prediction.

I base that assumption on the idea that I don't see anything currently out there more intensive than video, but then again, maybe we'll have invented transporter imaging technology and be sending high resolution maps of every atom in someone's body around the net. So I leave open the idea that I could be wrong about the curve ending.

Re:And nothing of value was added (4, Insightful)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336309)

Is all that bandwidth really just wasted on shiny?

You it's all just shiny, the world is going to hell in a handbasket and our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.

Now if you excuse me, I'll go and install that CentOS VM from the DVD image which downloaded in under an hour, listen to some streaming music and perhaps watch something on iPlayer this evening.

Facetiousness aside, the increase in capacity is great. I can easily share huge files with far-flung co-workers, upload/download whole VM images to IAAS providers, watch video on the net and a whole host of other things.

Oh, and finally, have you seen how fast "download all headers and articles" goes these days on even a busy usenet group? I remember doing that over a modem and it's much better now.

I certainly get my money's worth.

Re:And nothing of value was added (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43337629)

ooooohhh, look at mr six-digit ID quoting Socrates! He probably doesn't have a TV either.
I'll just leave this [archive.org] here for the enlightenment of all /. .

Re:And nothing of value was added (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#43338483)

The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance.

Re:And nothing of value was added (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43339539)

Which is why a government who knows everything about you is surely the bestest government!

Re:And nothing of value was added (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#43342925)

Digit envy?

Re:And nothing of value was added (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43339525)

You should read the first part of plato's "the cave." People have always complained of the avarice of youth.

Re:And nothing of value was added (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43343907)

Yes, yes, higher bandwidth is nice because we can now download what we had to wait for for hours in mere seconds. But did that really increase the data volume? That's like saying increasing the pressure in the water faucet makes us cleaner because we can now more easily wash ourselves, since we needn't collect the drops in a bucket anymore but can just turn on the faucet and wash ourselves. Do you wash yourself more just because more water is available?

You downloaded CentOS in a few minutes rather than a few days. Ok. And right afterwards you downloaded a few dozen Linux distros because you could? Or was the line idle the next hours or days?

How does you having a bigger pipe and being able to download faster affect your ISP? Instead of 50 lines dripping, he now has 1 line running and 49 idling.

Of course, there is an increase of data coming along with the higher availability (people will of course rather download another distro if they are unhappy with the one they got, simply because it's not another 2 days of waiting), but I somewhat doubt that this is a reason for international pipes needing a size up.

Re:And nothing of value was added (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336321)

Is it me or is the amount of information, when I look back through the history of the internet, that I get out of the 'net pretty much the same, just the traffic goes up?

I don't think you really considered the growth of information that is accessible now. In the mid or late 90s, we were still paying by check (and getting cancelled checks back!) - now we can take a picture of the check with our phone and deposit it that way. Back then, all of your government and utilities (and most businesses) relied on snail mail and paper forms - now there are some things where a paper form isn't even available. I dare say that almost every document that used to be faxed is now transferred over the internet instead. Netflix and CDNow started by sending physical DVDs or CDs through the mail - Amazon did the same with books - now much of that meatspace stuff is sent over the internet. Back then, I was constantly fighting the quota on my email - now Google gives me a free account with 10GB. Submitting information via a web browser was so painful in the 90s that only the simplest forms were really feasible. Now, with all the javascript and AJAX out there, you can realistically do word processing, spreadsheets, and presentations in your browser. Sites like IKEA let you lay out rooms in your browser. In the 90s, I had a 4 inch-think book that I used as a reference for most programming languages. Now I just hit the online documentation pages combined with Stack Overflow or similar.

Is there also a lot of crap just sucking up bandwidth? Well, yeah. If people have the speed, marketing will use it up like a swarm of locusts. But the internet has also changed remarkably since the 90s, with a ton more information and capability.

Re:And nothing of value was added (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43336509)

So what you're saying is that... you're still using checks? What is this, the 70s?

Re:And nothing of value was added (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336593)

In the US they are still the primary way to pay. Even if I pay "online", the payment is often in the form of a check. For vendors that aren't signed up in their system, the bank even sends a check out via snail mail. For bank transfers, a ACH is often used, which is basically just an e-check.

Re:And nothing of value was added (1)

xaxa (988988) | about a year and a half ago | (#43337039)

In the US they are still the primary way to pay. Even if I pay "online", the payment is often in the form of a check. For vendors that aren't signed up in their system, the bank even sends a check out via snail mail. For bank transfers, a ACH is often used, which is basically just an e-check.

Who pays for this?

Cheques still exist in Britain. I think I use about one a year, although I probably pay in about 5. However, most businesses avoid accepting them where they can. The costs to deal with them are quite high, both in bank charges and staff time, and the clearing time is lost interest. I don't think shops accept them any more, but it's still an option (although discouraged) for paying bills and making charitable donations. It's a pretty normal way to pay an independent tradesman (plumber, electrician etc), but even they often accept other means.

Electronic payments are either "instant" (max two hours, usually within five minutes), or -- if both banks aren't signed up to the system -- the next day (probably overnight).

Cheques and electronic transfers are free for individuals, but businesses pay. I've never looked before, but it seems Barclays charge big businesses 15p to receive an electronic deposit, and 94p to deposit a cheque. (And 48p per £100 to deposit cash.)

Re:And nothing of value was added (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year and a half ago | (#43339033)

The only reason I use checks anymore is because of mistakes made by others. I have "saved" a few hundred dollars in the past few years because some business claimed I didn't pay my bill on time, and the only thing linking me to them was a check with a note saying something like "gas bill".

When I pay electronically, it does not show up as the business charging me, it shows up as whichever credit-card processing system they use. And unless I want to take them to court to get a warrant to force the other company to disclose who charged, I would still have to pay the bill. The burden of proof of payment is on me and electronic withdraws are borderline useless to figure out who is was.

Re:And nothing of value was added (1)

xaxa (988988) | about a year and a half ago | (#43339375)

I don't have that reason, as the business name shows up on the bank statement, along with the reference string given with the transaction (usually an account number, but it's easy to set to 'concert ticket' if paying back a friend, for example). It's the same whether I send or receive money.

Even PayPal (hence eBay) put the person's account name in the reference field; "PayPal 09458kc-JoeBloggs CN £12.12".

Depositing cheques (or cash) just shows as "CREDIT", using a cheque just shows as "CHQ 000002".

Re:And nothing of value was added (1)

Crazy Taco (1083423) | about a year and a half ago | (#43342969)

The only reason I use checks anymore is because of mistakes made by others.

I have another reason for paying by check. It's because I'm forced to by idiotic government agencies that are still stuck in the past. For example, I just got my Minnesota license plate renewal form mailed to me. It said I can pay online electronically or mail in a check. I go online and I'm told that I will be charged a "handling fee" of $2.95 if I pay electronically. What a bunch of clowns must work at the DMV! Since when do you want to encourage people to pay in a way that requires manual processing labor? Most businesses are long past this, but I guess the government would prefer to grow and keep as many people on the payroll as possible rather than become more efficient and shrink headcount. I of course paid by check to avoid the extra charge, so some paper pusher will end up manually have to open my letter, enter my information into a system, manually deposit the check, etc. Way to go DMV.

And state government says our taxes aren't high enough and that they need to be raised again. Whatever.

Faxes are still used for "legal reasons". (1)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year and a half ago | (#43400345)

Fax machines are still used in some fields because their acceptance as legally-binding copies of signed contracts has already been tested in the courts and case law / precedents already established. This has not yet occurred for "electronic signatures" [wikipedia.org] , so the legal validity of electronically signed contracts is not as well established in courts of law, at least in the USA.
.
There are also privacy issues, and the risk and susceptibility of interception when transmitting unencrypted sensitive information over the internet (like those pictures of checks). Wikipedia's article on "Fax" [wikipedia.org] has this:
Fax machines still retain some advantages, particularly in the transmission of sensitive material which, if sent over the Internet unencrypted, may be vulnerable to interception, without the need for telephone tapping. In some countries, because electronic signatures on contracts are not recognized by law while faxed contracts with copies of signatures are, fax machines enjoy continuing support in business.[2] In Japan, faxes are still used extensively for cultural reasons

Re:Faxes are still used for "legal reasons". (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#43400475)

I have a fax number for the increasingly-small volume of faxes I need to send (and less frequently, receive) for the reasons you describe. Even then, my faxes go out and are received via email. I imagine there are niche users who use faxes all the time, but there is no question that overall volume is declining in favor of internet-based systems.

promises, promises, promises (1, Insightful)

buravirgil (137856) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336219)

I can't cite it, so it never happened, but the transfer of data, its more intensive examples, benefits corporations and governments and corporations and governments only. Human to human contact, such as voice calls, were promised to be ubiquitous and free because what worth corporations would derive from digital technology's rapid growth dwarfed what benefit an individual might. Instead, a text message is given charge by the character. An international call is distinguished from a local one. Maybe somone smarter than me can apply the addage about moving tapes in a station wagon to this latest mind blowing transfer rate and suss a conundrum of data capacity: Its storage versus its distribution. Whole library of congresses shall be traded between great power in the blink of an eye while the rest of us are to have thin clients driven by ad revenue.

Re:promises, promises, promises (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336261)

I've been with several carriers and have never had a text message charged by the character... as far is billing goes, I either sent/received a message or I didn't. There's also plenty of ways to have free voice or video calls (including internationally) if you're willing to use a computer headset instead of a phone. People still cling to the old ways, so companies do too... including billing for the old ways.

Re:promises, promises, promises (1)

buravirgil (137856) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336541)

I appreciate the accuracy you address. Text by the character was my memory from a carrier in Los Angeles in 2005. And I live outside the US and benefit from Skype, Google's clients and FaceTime, so the very trend I call to question is observed by the premise I frame somewhat. But what compelled me to post what I did was the attention granted to public and reported technological advances versus its shadow? Its scrutiny? Thanks for replying.

Re:promises, promises, promises (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43340379)

The general public is using the internet for Skype and email, for free. I'm not sure what kind of false dichotomy you're intending to create here attached to a story about WAN networks, but I think you need to look at yourself first and ask what is really bothering you.

Re:promises, promises, promises (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43337275)

Text messages and international calls still go through the outdated telephone infrastructure. It IS free for you to voice chat with anyone over the internet, regardless of position.

Just get everyone to switch to internet based telephony and you'd be fine. Complaining about telephone prices in regards to internet speed increases is like complaining that your horse is not getting any faster despite all these advances in automobiles.

Bollocks (1)

1u3hr (530656) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336235)

' Networks will need to support 58% compound annual growth rates in bandwidth on average, the IEEE claims, driven by simultaneous increases in users, access methodologies, access rates and services such as video on demand and social media. Networks would need to support capacity requirements of 1 terabit per second in 2015 and 10 terabit per second by 2020 if current trends continue, the organization says."

Just looking at the current rate of growth and extending it out indefinitely is clearly absurd. Exponential growth has to run into physical, or financial, limits sooner or later. Sooner in this case, I think.

Anyway, where I am, there has been no increase in speed for the last 10 years. In fact it's gotten worse, as more and more people hook up and try to stream video on their phones, pads, etc., etc., but the upstream capacity is still the same and the phone company just shrugs knowing we have no choice. So if I applied the same naive style of prediction, I'd say we are going to have 1.8 MB/sec forever. (Which may be true, unless fibre is activated in my lifetime.)

Re:Bollocks - Amen! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43336313)

My ISP, AT&T - and the only one I can get without having to pay for Comcast - has had me at ~ 2300Kbps for the last 10 years. This is the fastest they offer in my area and from what I can tell, there's no plan to increase bandwidth.

This standard won't be doing me any good for a long time.

What the fuck website am I reading? (5, Insightful)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336269)

As of my post there were 8 posts, all pessimistic either stemming from "they will never be able to do it" or "customers wont want to upgrade" or "most of my customers are still 100mb, and thats all anyone will ever need"

Who are you people? This is a cool and exciting new technology. Since when did this become a website full of luddites? (and seriously, the "100mb/640k is enough for everybody" people can go fuck yourselves)

Re:What the fuck website am I reading? (2)

Shatrat (855151) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336311)

I'm already using 100G, at work at least. I'm expecting to move to 400G (OTU5 on the transport side, carrying a 400GbE payload) within the next 3-5 years.
I expect the pessimists are the 'MSIE' types and 'HTML programmers'. This is a real thing that we are really going to need soon.

Re:What the fuck website am I reading? (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336635)

Thank you for returning at least some of my faith in the community.

Re:What the fuck website am I reading? (1)

Shatrat (855151) | about a year and a half ago | (#43338677)

No problem. Actually I misspoke a bit. I'll probably be moving to 400G OTU5 carrying 4x100GbE payloads at first, and then move to OTU5 carrying one 400GbE payload once router interfaces catch up.

Re:What the fuck website am I reading? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43341169)

What do you DO at work!? (Or where you work..)

Re:What the fuck website am I reading? (1)

Shatrat (855151) | about a year and a half ago | (#43342055)

I probably shouldn't say who because sometimes I'm a dick.
I work for a large telecom company and I do long haul fiber optic network planning. Layer 1 and 2 stuff, mostly servicing wholesale orders from other telecoms and our own internal needs to connect big routers, legacy Sonet networks, or large enterprise customers with serious bandwidth needs.
It's pretty safe to say that AT&T, Verizon, Centurylink, Zayo, Time Warner Telecom and any other national level carrier in the US has already been deploying 100G circuits or will be this year.

Re:What the fuck website am I reading? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43336475)

As of my post there were 8 posts, all pessimistic either stemming from "they will never be able to do it" or "customers wont want to upgrade" or "most of my customers are still 100mb, and thats all anyone will ever need"

Who are you people? This is a cool and exciting new technology. Since when did this become a website full of luddites? (and seriously, the "100mb/640k is enough for everybody" people can go fuck yourselves)

...says the guy excited about this new tech, yet PISSED when he sees an $12 increase per month in his cable/internet bill to pay for the damn thing.

Re:What the fuck website am I reading? (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336669)

Continual network upgrades should be included in the cost of subscription.

Though I suppose we know that cable providers will sit on the oldest technology they can get away with and try to squeeze as much money from their customers.

Re:What the fuck website am I reading? (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336691)

If your bill is going up every month, that is not from newer tech, but from greed. $20/month(plus inflation) will cover all infrastructure costs for most lightly-populated cities.

If you bill is going up faster than 4%/year, your ISP is making bank. Assuming your standard large incumbent ISP.

Re:What the fuck website am I reading? (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336953)

...says the guy excited about this new tech, yet PISSED when he sees an $12 increase per month in his cable/internet bill to pay for the damn thing.

The monthly fee already covers the costs for maintaining and upgrading the network.

Re:What the fuck website am I reading? (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336629)

100Mb is good enough for most devices isn't really luddite.

It's called practicality, at least from a home point of view, where a handful of average devices will still have a hard time saturating a 100Mb link.

Re:What the fuck website am I reading? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43339217)

100Mb is good enough for most devices isn't really luddite. It's called practicality, at least from a home point of view, where a handful of average devices will still have a hard time saturating a 100Mb link.

I think nitehawk214's point is that Slashdot didn't used to be marthastewart.com, aka the home point of view.

Re:What the fuck website am I reading? (1)

Kjella (173770) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336699)

I don't know if it qualifies as a luddite, but demand has actually been less than I expected. When I in 1993 saw "The 7th Guest" shipping on 2 CDs for a whopping gigabyte, I would have thought the games and video we see today would take many, many terabytes. But with much more powerful computers and much better compression you can deliver so incredibly much more in a gigabyte. 10 -> 100 Mbit was wonderful, 100 Mbit -> GigE was luxury and 10G... well honestly I don't feel the need even if it was reasonably priced. Even if we should quadruple up to 4K video, H.265 promises to cut that by half again.

I think we're approaching the point where "How much bandwidth do you have?" will be like asking "How big are your water pipes?" Don't know, but plenty to cook and shower and run a washing machine and water the lawn. Same with the electricity grid, I think they can deliver somewhere north of 50 kilowatts without blowing the main fuse, which I probably couldn't reach if I turned on everything I got on maximum. It's great that they make it for the Internet backbone and data centers and whatnot so hopefully there'll be a trickle down effect, but I could already get 6-7x faster Internet than I got (60/60 Mbit now, 400/400 possible).

Re:What the fuck website am I reading? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43339129)

I think we're approaching the point where "How much bandwidth do you have?" will be like asking "How big are your water pipes?" Don't know, but plenty to cook and shower and run a washing machine and water the lawn

And yet, when I see a truck go by with 36" pipes, I don't spend time thinking about how households use about the same (if not less) water each for some time, or talk about how small pipes you need for an individual house.

Re:What the fuck website am I reading? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43363593)

I think we're approaching the point where "How much bandwidth do you have?" will be like asking "How big are your water pipes?" Don't know, but plenty to cook and shower and run a washing machine and water the lawn.

You generally have no choice of water companies. Asking "how big are your water pipes" is silly because you never had a choice of pipes, so it never mattered, and you never had a choice of pipe providers. If the water companies were all for-profit and there was some (limited) competition and not only was it metered, but you had to pay pipe rental based on your diameter, then yes, people would know their pipe size and discuss it with others, and compare in the marketplace.

Re:What the fuck website am I reading? (1)

Sigg3.net (886486) | about a year and a half ago | (#43346019)

Because it makes my CAT6A-in-the-wall-of-every-room investment look like a bad decision.

Well I, for one, welcome our insanely rapid Ethernet overlords!

Anyone wanna buy some CAT6A bulk?

Re:What the fuck website am I reading? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43351357)

You rock, man! The most important characteristic any person can have is an open mind.

Re:What the fuck website am I reading? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43354205)

Cool tech is trumped by "but what does it mean to me". I'm playing with 100 Gb at work as well. Though it would be at least 10 years before 400 Gb made it to the desktop. I haven't seen any home equipment that uses 10 Gb yet, and even if it did, the rest of a home machine couldn't push bits that fast. And with a 10 Mb Internet, it doesn't do me any good. 1Gb will be about all we'll see in the home for a while, and that's good enough for any current use.

2020 (3, Informative)

concealment (2447304) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336273)

FTFA:

D'Ambrosia expects a similar timeline for 400G Ethernet: standard ratification in 2017.

The article also notes that 100G, which was ratified in 2010, is just now barely coming online.

Thus doing a little math, we're likely to see this standard in 2020 at the earliest, later if the nation collapses in insolvency.

Re:2020 (4, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336297)

They're hoping it will go a little quicker because they outsourced the design to China; If you open up a 400GB switch you'll find it's actually just a few thousand 10mb hubs soldered together.

Re:2020 (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336779)

Likewise, buying anything more than a 1Gb ethernet card is absurdly expensive, still. Why can't I get a decent low-end single port 10Gigabit card for under $300 yet?

Re:2020 (1)

jon3k (691256) | about a year and a half ago | (#43337711)

Why is over $300 "absurdly expensive" and under it not absurdly expensive? Seems really arbitrary. You can get an X520-T2 (dual port 10GBASE-T) for under $700.

But the simple answer is supply and demand. The only people who really need 10GbE (other than network carriers) is in the datacenter. Especially in highly virtualized workloads and extra especially when we're carrying storage and network traffic on the same 10GbE link(s). I guess you don't remember how insanely expensive 1GbE was when it first hit the market.

Re:2020 (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | about a year and a half ago | (#43345793)

Because I can buy 10 1GB/s cards for less than $100. No, they're not Intel cards. But how much demand is there for standalone Ethernet cards anymore? There's probably more market for them in the SMB sector than there is for home users, I'd wager.

And no, I really don't remember how insanely expensive 1gigE was when it hit the market. I first started getting gigE equipment in about 2001, 2002 - which was basically right after it was commercially available/mass produced. It was only a year or two old at the time, and you could get the chips on cheap motherboards from pretty much every vendor.

bandwidth growth has slowed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43342455)

Copper 10 gigabit ethernet was on the market in 2008. It is still expensive. It is not following the cost drop of 1 gigabit ethernet in the late 90s, early 2000s. Ethernet has reached the end of the assumption of rapidly advancing bandwidth, and rapid improvements in transistor density. It is now time for a high bandwidth optimized network technology. (Infiniband?)

Re:2020 (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336905)

what would the USA going into insolvency have to do with it? we don't make stuff, and China is growing markets and resource acquisition in southeast asia, africa, and south america.

Re:2020 (1)

buravirgil (137856) | about a year and a half ago | (#43337045)

We (US) don't manufacture stuff. But its investment, design and license does qualify as "make".

Re:2020 (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year and a half ago | (#43369825)

no, those are instances of what are called "paper bullshit wealth" and they can disappear in an instant. another example would be the "Federal Reserve Note"

Re:2020 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43340429)

If it happens at all. The IEEE also approved a 40G Ethernet standard, but that did not see much adoption. Most vendors opted to wait for 100G.

It's odd seeing all the "end user" posts from a tech site. It's the big core routers that will see this technology first. It's very common for carriers to have 4-8 10G aggregated Ethernet bundles to serve as links, and many are in the process of deploying or at least certifying 100G links to serve the same purposes. These will be used in aggregate as well. It remains to be seen if aggregated bundles scale upwards well enough to skip straight to terabit Ethernet or not. Irregardless, setting the groundwork for a standard is a good thing. Proprietary single-vendor solutions suck.

Why just 400 Gbps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43336315)

Why just 400Gbps if they figure they need 1Tbps by the year after next?

Re:Why just 400 Gbps? (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336359)

Why are we shooting for 40 mpg vehicles when we know we need 100+ mpg? Hell, why doesn't Ford just go ahead and create a vehicle that can get 100,000 miles off a single tank of gas?

Re:Why just 400 Gbps? (1)

Shatrat (855151) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336597)

400G is the next step up in the OTN hierarchy, it would be OTU5.

Re:Why just 400 Gbps? (1)

Tim the Gecko (745081) | about a year and a half ago | (#43341297)

Why just 400Gbps if they figure they need 1Tbps by the year after next?

It's down to what is possible in the next few years. 100G was originally implemented as 4 lanes of 25Gbit/s, which was challenging on the electronics side. There is also now a cheaper technology with 10 lanes of 10Gbit/s. To get further you need both more parallelism and higher speed serialization-deserialization. However, increasing either of these numbers comes with a cost. 400G looks possible with 16 lanes of 25Gbit/s, but an increase to 25 x 40Gbit/s would be very difficult indeed. Here's a link to a NANOG presentation - http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog52/abstracts.php?pt=MTc2MSZuYW5vZzUy&nm=nanog52 [nanog.org]

Re:Why just 400 Gbps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43342167)

Thanks. That's a real answer.

This is Infrastructure stuff, folks (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43336433)

And I am glad to see that some of the readers have picked up on that.

Not needed for desktop- as many have said, most have 100mb at home and wouldn't see a difference between that and GigE.
But infrastructure that was blazing fast 10 years ago with 100 users is now crawling at a snail's pace with 5000 users.

Usage per device has gone up quite a bit, which has an impact.
The increase in the number of connected devices has had an impact.
Add the two together....
Yeah, current network infrastructure is not sufficient for future needs and if this shit isn't worked on NOW we can all expect our broadband connections to perform like the dialup in the 90s a few years from now.

Re:This is Infrastructure stuff, folks (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#43336889)

Usage per device has gone up quite a bit, which has an impact.
The increase in the number of connected devices has had an impact.
Add the two together....

Multiply, actually.

Oooh! Faster! (1)

some old guy (674482) | about a year and a half ago | (#43337563)

Marketing buffoons: "Woohoo! More blinly-twirly CGI widgets and streamed kewt kitteh ads!"

Web Developers: "That will be $$$, please."

Data Center Professionals: "It's about time!"

Consumers on throttled DSL or cable connections: "Meh..."

Uncompressed video (1)

TheSync (5291) | about a year and a half ago | (#43339989)

Moving uncompressed HD video (4:2:2 10-bit) requires about 1.5 Gbps, so I am very happy to see the ability to carry 266 professional video streams in one 400 GbE connection in the broadcast plant.

UHDTV1 (sometimes incorrectly called 4K) resolution at 60 fps requires 12 Gbps for 4:2:2 10-bit uncompressed, so it already jumps into 40 GbE connections. I have to admit I am not sure if we will see uncompressed 4K very often even in production, but potentially a visually lossless codec around 1 Gbps would make a lot of sense if it holds up through multiple encode/decode cycles.

Not for the average customer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43341209)

For bandwidth like this the only implimentations I am aware of are for long haul backbone on Telco networks. The Infinera DTN-X is being used and deployed currently, and the one that we just set up was 16 channel DWDM at 100GigE per channel. There's nothing like this that will be feeding a customer site for quite some time. Though we could drop 100GigE to the customer I suppose...

http://www.infinera.com/products/DTN-X.html

It does not look like Infinera has updated their specs on this recently.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?