Network Guy
join:2000-08-25
New York
 ·PHONE POWER
·Broadvox Direct
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| So much for capacity worries This sends a nice big STFU to claims by AT&T about "network capacity apocalypse by 2010."
That's pretty impressive. Question is.. Can they transport sustained 100Gbps on the backhaul? Not gonna be a pretty sight if they don't test that before-hand. | |
|
 rebus9
join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | Re: So much for capacity worries said by Network Guy  :Question is.. Can they transport sustained 100Gbps on the backhaul? Yeah, backbone links are typically less problematic capacity-wise than regional transport. Am I worried? Not really.
10 years ago the average household had 56k dialup. Today 20/20 is commodity. That's a ~350-fold increase. So where will we be in 10 more years? 
I think the bottleneck to deployment of these magical 100G/sec (or even terabit/sec) circuits will be equipment costs.
Anyone whose purchased line cards to terminate OC-x circuits will appreciate the magnitude of the investment required to accomplish this, not to mention the switch/router chassis to house those cards. Each switch/router is a 7-figure investment, and there are thousands of these devices that will need to be upgraded accordingly.
| |
|
 | Done_Posting
Shoot to kill
Premium
join:2003-08-22
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| Re: So much for capacity worries We replaced our Mahi backhaul gear ($700,000+ each) with several Turin chassis ($400,000 each) recently. The Turin stuff is capable of OC-384, whereas I believe the Mahi maxed at OC-192. I want to say the OC-48 cards we populate the Turin are like $15K a pop, but I may be off. In any event, this is a good example of backbone equipment costs coming down. The Turin is beefier yet almost half the cost of the old stuff! Who knows -- by the time 2010 rolls around we'll probably see OC-768 gear in the $200K range!
- Tate
--
Happiness is an OC-48 in your basement... | |
|
| | Network Guy
join:2000-08-25
New York | Re: So much for capacity worries As long as Cisco isn't leading nor isn't the only one rolling out next-gen equipment rollout, you can bet on continued lower costs.
Could be worst.. You could have Foundry gear. | |
|
| | | Done_Posting
Shoot to kill
Premium
join:2003-08-22
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| Re: So much for capacity worries said by Network Guy :Could be worst.. You could have Foundry gear. Haha, we actually do use Foundry's to provide WAN peering connections for our non-PtP ethernet and non-PtP DS1 / DS3 customers, as well as our sister cableco's cable modem platform. I take it your experience with Foundry equipment has been less than stellar?
- Tate
--
Happiness is an OC-48 in your basement... | |
|
| | | | Network Guy
join:2000-08-25
New York | Re: So much for capacity worries I've toyed with one or two, not in a production environment. Interface is just hideous. | |
|
|
|
|
