nanog mailing list archives
Re: Lightning Debates at NANOG 51
From: Tom Daly <tom () dyn com>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 15:45:15 -0500 (EST)
Greg,
i suspect you are correct, not sure who would elect for the slower standard, considering they hit the streets fairly close to each other and I can't see there being a huge difference in cost, but i could be wrong. (the isp i'm connected to is running100G now)
Regarding 40G/100G, I'm sure some in the NANOG community have some feeling towards 40G as it was intended to be a server platform standard. With architectures such as 1aq, TRILL, VL2, etc, there may be some grounds here. What's the good of 100G if you can't push the PPS, for example. Just a thought...
i've more 10G ports than you can shake a stick at actually… my '?' was again, people debate this? as the bit rates are verbatum, the major difference which one would choose the other over from my understanding was distance to endpoint.. but again i could be wrong… wishing now i didn't send anything. 8)
Nah, send away. What debate were you volunteering to take a position on again? :) Tom
Current thread:
- Lightning Debates at NANOG 51 Tom Daly (Dec 07)
- Re: Lightning Debates at NANOG 51 Owen DeLong (Dec 07)
- Re: Lightning Debates at NANOG 51 Jac Kloots (Dec 07)
- Re: Lightning Debates at NANOG 51 Greg Whynott (Dec 07)
- Re: Lightning Debates at NANOG 51 Tom Daly (Dec 07)
- RE: Lightning Debates at NANOG 51 George Bonser (Dec 07)
- Re: Lightning Debates at NANOG 51 Tom Daly (Dec 07)
- RE: Lightning Debates at NANOG 51 George Bonser (Dec 07)
- Re: Lightning Debates at NANOG 51 Tom Daly (Dec 07)
- Re: Lightning Debates at NANOG 51 Greg Whynott (Dec 07)
- Re: Lightning Debates at NANOG 51 Tom Daly (Dec 07)
- Re: Lightning Debates at NANOG 51 Owen DeLong (Dec 07)
- Re: Lightning Debates at NANOG 51 John Kristoff (Dec 07)
- Re: Lightning Debates at NANOG 51 Christian Pena (Dec 07)
- Re: Lightning Debates at NANOG 51 kris foster (Dec 07)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Lightning Debates at NANOG 51 Scott Weeks (Dec 07)