nanog mailing list archives
Re: /. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now
From: George Herbert <george.herbert () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:42:15 -0700
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 6:04 AM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org> wrote:
In a message written on Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 08:58:09AM -0400, Darius Jahandarie wrote:I recall 40Gbit/s Ethernet being promoted heavily for similar reasons as the ones in this article, but then 100Gbit/s being the technology that actually ended up in most places. Could this be the same thing happening?Everything I've read sounds like a repeat of the same broken decision making that happened last time. That is unsurprising though, the same people are involved.
If the vendors are saying costs will be prohibitive, are you willing to pay significantly more for the interfaces to make them do it anyways? -- -george william herbert george.herbert () gmail com
Current thread:
- /. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now Eugen Leitl (Sep 27)
- Re: /. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now Darius Jahandarie (Sep 27)
- Re: /. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now Leo Bicknell (Sep 27)
- Re: /. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now George Herbert (Sep 27)
- Re: /. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now Jared Mauch (Sep 27)
- Re: /. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now jim deleskie (Sep 27)
- Re: /. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now Rosenthal Phil (Sep 27)
- Re: /. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now Mikael Abrahamsson (Sep 27)
- Re: /. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now Steve Meuse (Sep 27)
- Re: /. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now Leo Bicknell (Sep 27)
- Re: /. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now Masataka Ohta (Sep 29)
- Re: /. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now Jimmy Hess (Sep 30)
- Re: /. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now joel jaeggli (Sep 30)
- Re: /. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now Masataka Ohta (Sep 30)
- Re: /. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now Darius Jahandarie (Sep 27)
- Re: /. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now Tom Hill (Sep 30)