IEEE Seeks Data On Ethernet Bandwidth Needs

itwbennett writes "The IEEE has formed a group to assess demand for a faster form of Ethernet, taking the first step toward what could become a Terabit Ethernet standard. 'We all contacted people privately' around 2005 to gauge the need for a faster specification, said John D'Ambrosia, chairman of the new ad hoc group. 'We only got, like, seven data points.' Disagreement about speeds complicated the process of developing the current standard, called 802.3ab. Though carriers and aggregation switch vendors agreed the IEEE should pursue a 100Gbps speed, server vendors said they wouldn't need adapters that fast until years later. They wanted a 40Gbps standard, and it emerged later that there was also some demand for 40Gbps among switch makers, D'Ambrosia said. 'I don't want to get blindsided by not understanding bandwidth trends again.'"

Re:Build it

[TheRaven64]

Did they? Because I remember finding 10Mb/s networks too slow in the mid '90s. Switched 10Mb/s networks made that a bit better, but often there was still a bottleneck. On the other hand, I've only found 100Mb/s too slow on a few occasions - maybe once per year. I've used GigE, but I've never come close to saturating it.

Like the grandparent said, it's a question of diminishing returns. 1Mb/s is fast enough for pretty much any text-based data. 10Mb/s is fine for still images, unless they're really huge raw photos (and even then, progressive loading probably means that you won't notice the bottleneck). 100Mb/s is fine for video - even HD. There will eventually be things for which 1000Mb/s is too slow, but they're going to be relatively uncommon. 100Mb/s will remain fast enough for all of the things that it's fast enough for now.

And once you get to 'fast enough', other things become more important. I turned off the switch in my last house once I realised that I hadn't used the wired network for several months, and my new house is entirely wireless. 54Mb/s and freedom from wires is more useful to me than 100Mb/s.

Re:I don't think you guys were listening

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Running the cable is the part that requires the effort, unfortunately. There are things that help(ie. if underground, lay a larger diameter conduit than you think you'll need; because you will end up needing it. Leave a fish line so that you can pull the next bundle through, etc.); but for anything longer than an in-room patch, the cost of getting more cable run can go up quickly. In building, you need to run the stuff so as not to damage any fire barriers(and ideally avoid having to tear up any walls...) Underground, there are the joys of trenching or pulling recalcitrant cables through existing pipes. If running on utility poles, the proximity to high voltage means you'll probably need linesmen, even though fiber is electrically harmless.

When you can, you 'plan for expandability' by pulling as many strands of fiber in a single bundle as they'll let you get away with. The cost of each strand is comparatively small. The cost of pulling a bundle, whether it be two strands or 128 strands, is comparatively huge. You then just leave the ones you don't immediately need dark until you do need them.

For very nasty runs(undersea cables, backbones of large landmasses, etc.) I'm told that there is some emphasis on designing new transmitter/receiver systems that can squeeze more bandwidth out of the strands you already have(when the alternative is laying another fiber bundle across the Pacific Ocean almost arbitrarily expensive endpoint hardware starts to look like a solid plan...) Such matters are well beyond my personal experience, though.