|
Those be backbone speeds10 Gbps, them be backbone speeds. To be honest I didn't even think you could push 10Gbps over a single fiber beyond a few miles and even that is using ethernet. I'm really curious about what the range is on this and if they could actually start playing with this to connect backbone locations assuming it has any real range and can compete against OC-X connections in terms of reliability. |
|
1 recommendation |
Actually, Verizon's exploring 100 Gbps backbone speeds: » www.fiercetelecom.com/st ··· 09-12-15 |
|
|
Rob23 to chimera4
Anon
2009-Dec-17 8:38 pm
to chimera4
It's just a test but it was on a separate wavelength along with the gpon 2.4gbps wavelength so its 12.4Gbps, with this the 32nd customer on the node can be a cell tower or a wi-fi/femtocell hot spot on its own wavelength or a s/m/l business. 3DHDTV is way down the road all you need now is gpon. |
|
fiber_manThings Happen For A Reason Premium Member join:2001-01-27 Port Saint Lucie, FL |
to chimera4
Any speed 10/100 gig or higher can be done over fiber as long as the equipment on both ends are capable of those speeds. We have circuits running 57 miles without regeneration. They have lasers out that start at a +5,+10 db,etc. to run the longer distances so that they are received at the other end at -15 to -22 db. |
|
|
skuv to chimera4
Anon
2009-Dec-17 11:25 pm
to chimera4
10Gbit connections can go for miles without being put through an amp, and with amps, they can go hundreds of miles. And that is with DWDM, 40 or 80 channels, each at 10Gbit. With 40 and 100Gbit channels already trickling out.
It's already as reliable as OC-X connections and much cheaper. Hardly anyone buys OC-192 over 10Gbit at this point. |
|
|
Out of curiosity what standard is used for internet backbones then since I thought that was built largely on OC-X? |
|
|
|
It's still rated in OC since OC is just the designator for optical carrier.
They are working on a new rating system soon , Thanks to the guys at alcatel hitting 100 petabits in the lab. |
|
|
So, OC-X doesn't actually have any relation to the number of fiber channels or frequency bands being used then? Good to know, I thought it actually was a reference to some sort of layout scheme and not just a measure of raw speed. |
|
lovswr join:2001-09-15 Riverview, FL |
lovswr
Member
2009-Dec-18 8:21 am
Mayhaps some clarification:
Although contracts in todays MPLS world are all written in neat multiples of bandwidth (10G, 100M, etc...) make no mistake, the underlying structure at Layer 1 (using the old OSI model) is till SONET*. That is to say, the presentation to you is a physical Ethernet interface with the port provisioned neat slices of bandwidth, but just as soon as possible, that will be converted into the SONET domain for transport over the long haul. Now, bandwidth (AT THE WHOLESALE LEVEL!) is dirt cheap in N. America, so really from a network designers point of view one can just about forget about Layer 1 completely & just design from Layer 2 on up. No need for ME to worry about ring switches or revertive or non-revertive shemes, when I can just have that Jupiter M series router go to it's fallback plan/routes in less than 55 milliseconds (the standard time of a SONET ring switch) or less.
So to kinda answer your question, it is more an indicator of total bandwidth potential than how that bandwidth is implemented.
* SONET/SDH is still used as the underlying structure, because it is well understood, ubiquitous, & already in place. If one tried to design a system that is more ill-suited for LONG haul transmission, one would be hard pressed to beat Ethernet for THAT task.
Ethernet has virtually no fault tolerance, monitoring, or online testing provisions. Nor does it integrate well with modern STRATUM schemes & it is just plain inefficient to boot. |
|
aefstoggaflmOpen Source Fan Premium Member join:2002-03-04 Bethlehem, PA Linksys E4200 ARRIS SB6141
|
to Karl Bode
New Business pipe currently live and running from Paris to Franfurt
According to the article, Verizon decided to dump the experiments with the 10 Gbps because it was the same cost to start with the 100 Gbps and they will be able to do it in a similar time line. So why keep trying to upgrade to only 10 Gbps when they can do the 100 Gbps for the same price.
^^ |
|