Qwest Achieves 100-Mile IP Round-Trip At 40Gb/sec 141
TheShrike writes: "As reported in the Denver Rocky Mountain News:
'Almost without fanfare, a joint venture of Denver-based Qwest Communications and Dutch telecommunications company KPN has smashed the cyber speed record for transmission of data over the Internet.
The joint venture, called KPNQwest, transmitted 40
gigabits of data per second in a 100-mile round-trip
connection between Frankfurt and Gernsheim,
Germany, last week.'" Add Napster, stir. [16th May, 4:50GMT: Updated headline to read "Gb" not "GB." Thanks, all. -t.]
Re:Mmmm...bandwidth *drool* (Score:1)
Streaming video. Streaming TV. A good idea I think, but when you get people who start to stream movies, that will naturally piss off the MPAA.
Not if they are for pay. You can get movies via digital cable, why not have the functionality of a digital cable decoder in your PC? It certainly can be done, but the question is, can it be video "on demand".
It's all converging now anyway. In some areas, you can not only get cable and internet through your cable TV company's wire, but also phone service (like a plain-old dumb phone with a keypad and handset, not iphone, etc)... The question is, will the local phone companies die out because they are so slow to get decent bandwidth to the homes? Try to get them to put in ISDN or DSL in your home if you are more than N yards away from the office if you don't know what I'm talking about...
And yeah, there are some QoS concerns that IP can't address wrt "internet phones", but... It's happening.
One thing they should *slow* down: (Score:1)
They cut through workers about as fast as they send data through a fiber circuit. Great bandwidth, horrible company (they bought out my last employer, please allow me to make my stabs wherever I can).
As to the latency questions a lot of people are asking about, Qwest's backbone (their American version anyways) freaking screams. When I worked for them, they could average a 70ms ping between SF and NYC. Before that, averages I was getting were around 90ms. At the time of me posting this, they're pulling 74ms.
I can only imagine that this feat over in Germany mimics that behavior.
Re:Now what am I supposed to do (Score:1)
A PC with a standard 100mb ethernet card only really uses about 25% of the 100mb bandwidth. This is a NIC card design limitation.
7 PCs on a 100mb CAT5 hub would most likely be a very fast network, unless all 7 PCs were trying to ping each other to death.
CAT5 if properly installed can support gigabit ethernet, so you have a lot of expansion room before you need fibre.
Re:Not always true! (Score:1)
yes that guy was quite a tool
Re:Not always true! (Score:1)
Right after I clicked it, I got two BSOD's, and then I was dumped back to my desktop. I tried running some programs to see if my system was still stable, but that just caused my system to lock up, so I was forced to reboot.
3.28 Terabit. (Score:2)
Re:Yeah that's great but.. (Score:1)
Qwest has no speed increases in my book til they get decent sysadmins and routers.
Yes, I am flaming qwest cause they do SUCK. expecially thier chicago routers.
Re:What is Qwest going to use this for? (Score:1)
Second of all, yes, Qwest is a long distance company. However, we do other things besides long distance. The group I work in, QIS (Qwest Internet Solutions) hosts a lot of big name sites. We are the third largest carrier of internet traffic now, and are growing fast.
US West deal: Yes, it should be going through. Its not my department, but as far as I know, we are getting state approval for the merger.
What is the other companies part in this? I don't know, ask them.
However, people should be aware that what happened in Germany was not Qwest itself, but another company called KpnQwest, which is a joint effort between us and KPN, a large teleco in Europe.
Hope this answers some questions.
Re:An interesting thought I just had... (Score:1)
Lucent, Ciena, Cisco, blah blah... They're all doing this stuff. Multiplexing at different light frequencies is a big market right now. At one time, Ciena was the best at it (it's a big leapfrog contest... "We're better!" .. "No! We're Better!"... ad infinitum)
T
Here we go again... (Score:2)
<OFF TOPIC>I'm wondering if the Bull system does loop qualifying for DSL by a certain list or is there some way to let the last mile monopoly know your waiting for it and please DO ME FIRST & stop wasting time qualifying people who can't even spell DSL.</OFF TOPIC>
Can you imagine... (Score:1)
(Sorry, just had to do it....)
Re:Mmmm...bandwidth *drool* (Score:3)
Costs could drop (Score:1)
Re:Dumb question? (Score:2)
Ask everyone to reload
When did they say they did the testing? Hmm.. Makes me wonder..
Seriously though.. They didn't use commodity PC equipment.. Prolly a purpose built signalling device just sending an alternating binary stream on each specific range. Easy to check for error!!
You could do it with just over fifty 556 ICs and just over seventy transistors..
40 Gbps == max. bandwidth of human vision? (Score:2)
Re:An interesting thought I just had... (Score:1)
I have a feeling the telcom giants (ATT, MCI, Sprint) and all their subsidaries (WorldCom, UUnet, and whatever Sprint named theirs) will make the most money. They will install the lines, in order to reduce their cost of transmitting data/phones across their backbones, and "in order to pay for the upgrades" they will raise ISP costs by 10 percent or so. Then they will never lower them again. Great.. here come higher dedicated access costs again...
Re:Dumb question? (Score:1)
try again:
Know about ADAT recording? It uses SVGA tapes, and has a sample rate of 250 MHZ (I think) for quality 16 times better than CDs- oh wait... still not enough...
Remember that SF story about people licing in the computers, with ALL of their synaptic connections represented in the computer? Well, here we go! And I bet Al Gore will take credit for it!
(Sorry for this stupid fucking post)
Re:Latency? (Score:1)
But not a realistic test (Score:1)
Re:40 Gbps == max. bandwidth of human vision? (Score:1)
Re:pretty slow connection (Score:1)
Re:40 Gbps == max. bandwidth of human vision? (Score:1)
Thad
Yeah that's great but.. (Score:5)
Re:Americans and Dutch in Germany? (Score:1)
Re:Costs could drop (Score:1)
MUST HAVE QUAKE!!!! (Score:1)
Re:I'll take the 1.6 Terrabit connection Please (Score:1)
Americans and Dutch in Germany? (Score:2)
Re:40 Gbps == max. bandwidth of human vision? (Score:1)
"Do not look into laser with remaining eye".
I know someone who actually looked into the beam of a laserpointer because 'the colors were so pretty'. Needless to say he's blinded himself in one eye now...
Wow. (Score:1)
Granted, this is certain to be old hat in another two years. As the article mentions, this a quadruple of the previous record of 10mbit from two years ago.
In the meantime, I want a point to point from my office to my house. I'll never have to get dressed again.
Re:Not the beer, trust me, not the beer (Score:1)
African "ring of fire" (Score:2)
I remember reading about that a while back.
Here's the
So, what makes this cooler?
T
Compression is involved (Score:2)
Re:pretty slow connection (Score:1)
Message on our company Intranet:
"You have a sticker in your private area"
Mmmm...bandwidth *drool* (Score:3)
1. Streaming video. Streaming TV. A good idea I think, but when you get people who start to stream movies, that will naturally piss off the MPAA.
2. MB overload. Even the most modern computer systems can only handle so much bandwidth...
3. Overki...never mind, there's no such thing as overkill when it comes to having too much bandwidth.
And last but not least....
4. $$$$$. Bandwidth is a Good Thing(tm), but it can get rather expensive.
=================================
Re:bit vs. byte (Score:1)
The customer was buying a 56kbit modem and the salesman was telling him how he'd be able to connect at 56kBytes, nodding yes to questions like "I can download a 1MB file in less than 20 seconds?"
Re:Wow. (Score:1)
Internet2 is already at 900 Mb/s Across the US. (Score:1)
fast speed (Score:2)
Re:Latency? (Score:1)
Re:FYI... (Score:1)
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
I'll take the 1.6 Terrabit connection Please (Score:1)
This is like having the choice of a 10-BaseT switch or a 100-BaseT Hub. take a look at the article
Yahoo News [yahoo.com]
Spacecase
Re:What does this mean for the average user? (Score:1)
The point of this is not to run 40Gb to your house, but to use it for major backbones. The benefit to you personally is getting full bandwidth to your DSL line (or whatever) from various web sites or download servers.
--
Re:Dumb question? (Score:1)
Post to usenet using your real email address. The resulting spam ought to do it.... Jason.
Re:Dumb question? (Score:1)
How to get 40Gb/s between Frankfurt and Gernsheim (Score:1)
1) Get one large truck.
2) Get approximately 1.5million CD-ROMs
3) Put 3) into 2)
4) Drive to Frankfurt from Gernsheim
5) drive back
explanation:
1.5million CD-ROMs @ ~ 600Mb/disc == 900000000Mb
divide 900000000/5hours == 180000000Mb/hour
which is about == 48Gb/s
Latency is your problem to solve
DRMN vs. Post (Score:1)
Has anyone mentioned who's equipment was used? (Score:1)
BTW, this really doesn't mean a thing. Assuming you can buy a 40Gbs tomorrow (which you won't be able to). It can't use any fiber older then like 2 years, and even then it can only use a small percentage of that. This puts costs way up. As in not feasible.
So for the moment a system like Nortel's 1.6Tb is more feasible and even then you have to be picky about the fiber.
Re:An interesting thought I just had... (Score:1)
How about JDS Uniphse? They're into some pretty cool optical switches.
Re:3.28 Terabit. (Score:1)
Schrader claimed that 3.28 terabits is enough to handle all the telephone conversations being made in the United States all at once. I think a few of these would probably handle all the cellphone video connections anybody might want.
And? (Score:1)
That's all well and good, but when is Qwest going to start nuking spammers on their networks?
Re:Yeah that's great but.. (Score:1)
I wanna see a MUD where your bandwidth is suitably respected...
"come here dwarf lord, I am going to sk00l you with my 5 megabytes per second firebolt!"
Re:Dumb question? (Score:1)
telco pipe used for ATM in a SDH. Not only for
use with computerdata.
Re:Costs could drop (Score:1)
Re:But not a realistic test (Score:2)
Uncompressed: 40G/s
Compressed: int x=1; while (x) cout x --x++;
For any significant amount of data, I'd say near infinite compression..
But it doesn't have to be limited to such insanely small homogenous granularity. Say you're using conventional CMOS components. Rig it to just spew random data. Trivial to do. While it would repeat eventually, the granularity is 1/infinity instead of 1/1.
Watch it strip mp carats..
Re:Yeah that's great but.. (Score:1)
Grouping fast, reliable together as "good", as the old saying goes: pick 2 of the 3. You can't have cheap, good, and quickly delivered all at the same time. So yes, it is an oxymoron. 8')
I guess you have to wait for it to trickle down. In getting you to the internet backbone, there is kind of this fat tree tructure, with fat being bandwidth. The backbone is the fattest part (okay, the LAN is the fattest part, but I am talking about the WAN here). If the branches can get fatter (i.e. from the cable company, the local phone provider, or the ISP to the net) then you have a chance of speeding up that bottleneck. And likewise, it can trickle further down to the network that gets the signal from your home to the ISP. The can run high-speed lines to those big green boxes outside your house. If there is enough bandwidth to those (and to the above internet), you won't notice any "sharing effect"
There is also the matter of physical cables. Once companies have the right-of-way, they can wire you whatever they want. Once fiber is cheaper, they can run that to the homes if the part on the tree above can support it. But that is a lot of cable...
Then comes the business part... How do they totally rewire to every home on the the planet with fiber at a reasonable cost?
There is only so much channel capacity on the phone switches and cable networks until they upgrade them... So that is another option. There is still a lot of bandwidth to be had in copper, but you need a lot of electronics to keep it going (repeaters, amplifiers, etc)
It's kind of funny that, after you go to all this hassle, the site you want to download the Diablo 2 movie caps you at a 10kB/sec download speed. 8') Oh well.
Re:bit vs. byte (Score:2)
Re:Dumb question? (Score:1)
First of all, realize that this is not meant to plug into some personal computer, or even mainframe. It's meant to work with a pair of big-ass expensive backbone routers between major ISPs. Think about the big pipe between, say, Exodus and MCI.
--
Flashing light/seizures (Score:1)
I have experienced this many times. I get this kind of blackout feeling, like I've lost consciousness for a brief second or two. It used to happen to me on the school bus, when I would be sleepy in the morning, and the light would flash at some frequency from the trees outside, and I would suddenly feel like I blacked out.
I actually had a car accident that I believe was caused by this type of effect. Does anyone have any more information on this type of "seizure/blackout"?
Re:What did KPNQwest do? (Score:1)
Push the button ?
Re:pretty slow connection (Score:1)
yes, IP (Score:2)
their stuff switches IP at full wire rate, on all wires, at the same time. AND, it can filter all that stuff at full wire rate, too.
pretty amazing stuff. you hear that cisco? ;-)
--
40Gbps is NOTHING - 40Gbps/wavelength is the point (Score:1)
What's cool about this, is they put 40Gbps on a single carrier on a fiber. This means that, eventually, they can stack a bunch of 40Gbps carriers, on slightly different laser frequencies, in the same fiber to carry [1,2,4,8?]Tbps.
Commercial systems with the capacity to carry over a Terabit-per-second of data over a single fiber are already commercially available (and actually shipping) from companies like Ciena [ciena.com] and probably Nortel [nortel.com]. Lucent says they have equipment in the lab that is faster, but they're a bit like Microsoft in terms of making press releases long before they have working products, to inspire FUD in their competitor's potential customers... :^)
Re:bit vs. byte (Score:2)
Re:What did KPNQwest do? (Score:1)
With what kind of data they tested the connection? (Score:1)
Re:Yeah that's great but.. (Score:1)
Easy... (Score:2)
2) About 20GB/Sec one the IDE bus, IIRC. Well within the limits of streaming video.
3) Companies know that.
4) As companies compete to increase it the price will fall. I expect either really fast flat rate or for pennies a gigabyte to become a reality fairly quickly. Of course, when you start streaming 4 to 6 gigabyte movies, it'll add up fairly quickly. Should still be less than your current phone bill at the end of the month (Unless you're a real bandwidth whore.)
Re:Not always true! (Score:1)
pretty slow connection (Score:1)
40Gb will barely cover the growth of the standard wired networks, forget the mobile.
I am not saying it is slow, I am just saying it's not going to be enough.
Re:bit vs. byte -- corrected. (Score:1)
Now I've corrected it and noted that in the story. Hopefully many more people get to read the corrected than the uncorrected version
timothy
Re:Costs could drop (Score:1)
Re:I'll take the 1.6 Terrabit connection Please (Score:1)
Whatever's available first.
I'll upgrade as bandwidth becomes available in my area.
I'm not one of those holdouts waiting for universal ansible connections.
Re:Mmmm...bandwidth *drool* (Score:1)
Actually, RealAudio/Video/etc. has support for IP Multicast. It's been in there since at least version 5 or so.
Multicast isn't really available on the public Internet yet, so that's the reason why RealAudio has to duplicate all streams that are being uploaded to listeners. Real's site mentions multicast being feasible "on an internal company intranet" or something like that.
I haven't tried it myself, though...
Re:Mmmm...bandwidth *drool* (Score:1)
Re:Mmmm...bandwidth *drool* (Score:1)
Re:Mmmm...bandwidth *drool* (Score:1)
1. Streaming video. Streaming TV. A good idea I think, but when you get people who start to stream movies, that will naturally piss off the MPAA.
This doesn't really effect the amount of bandwidth that you can get at home, nor does it effect the fact that TCP/IP is not optimized for real time transmittion, what with out of order packets being useless in realtime. (Though IMO as bandwidth increases to the point where it's possible to have high resolution video, this problem with cease to be as important, as the dropped packets will be insignificant to the amount of data in a single frame, and algorythms could be worked out to let it degrade gracefully in the face of missing data.
2. MB overload. Even the most modern computer systems can only handle so much bandwidth...
Granted, even the 100mbit switch we have here makes the differance between accessing data across the network, and accessing it locally negligable in terms of speed. However, this sort of high speed fiber is meant to be used at a rather high level where it won't be interacting with the realitively slow PC's.
3. Overki...never mind, there's no such thing as overkill when it comes to having too much bandwidth.
And last but not least.... 4. $$$$$. Bandwidth is a Good Thing(tm), but it can get rather expensive.
Actually, most of the cost of bandwidth in a WANis in the physical medium rather than the hardware being used to route it. Running a piece of plastic across the atlantic ocean is *expensive* designing a router to make use of it is *cheap*. So, this will in fact probably make bandwidth cheaper rather than more expensive.
Re:Mmmm...bandwidth *drool* (Score:1)
Metric please (Score:1)
Re:Not always true! (Score:1)
Re:Americans and Dutch in Germany? (Score:1)
Guinness.... mmmmm...
Re:What does this mean for the average user? (Score:1)
Re:Amazing (Score:1)
Correction! If you live in Philadelphia or Pittsburgh......all the dsl you can get. screw the rest of PA
Re:Yeah that's great but.. (Score:1)
Re:African "ring of fire" (Score:1)
Re:40 Gbps == max. bandwidth of human vision? (Score:1)
I don't believe that is exactly what the poster meant but it was somewhat funny
If I remember correctly a TV runs at about 30 frames per second. This is enough to fool the human vision system. Now take the number of rods and cones on the back of the average retina times two. (I don't know the answer to this.) Then you will have a pretty good idea of the total data available as raw input. There must be some interesting compression happening in the actual processing of the data.
Apparently the system can be overloaded. Remember that Pokemon episode in Japan a while back that caused many siezures in children.
Re:African "ring of fire" (Score:1)
What is Qwest going to use this for? (Score:1)
As far as I know, Qwest is mostly a long distance company, and one of the first long distance companies to use TCP instead of circuits for long distance. Since using packets instead of circuits in real time audio (aka phone) service presents serious problems of lag time, I imagine that Qwest is doing this so they can deal with the problem of packet control lag time.
The other reason they may be doing this has to do with the fact that they own USWest (or USWorst, as it is sometimes known), which is now the largest provider of DSL service in the world. Since they are still engaged in a campaign to sell DSL to everyone and their senile mother, they will eventually need more bandwidth to deal with all those new DSL lines.
That would be my guess behind all of this, but I do have a few questions:
Am I right about Qwest being a long distance company?
Did the USWest deal ever go through?
What is the other companies steak in this?
Cool! (Score:2)
--
Re:bit vs. byte (Score:2)
Re:Dumb question? (Score:2)
bit vs. byte (Score:2)
What does this mean for the average user? (Score:2)
Re:What is Qwest going to use this for? (Score:2)
Re:40 Gbps == max. bandwidth of human vision? (Score:2)
As for bandwidth of the human vision system, I'm not at all sure that it makes sense to talk about such a thing. The system is analogue. It would be like trying to say what the bandwidth of a peice of A4 paper is, based on some crude notions of the smallest dot you can make with a pen or something. It's simply not a helpful way to think about this stuff, IMHO.
Re:Yeah that's great but.. (Score:2)
Dumb question? (Score:3)
--
Latency? (Score:2)
--
NOT IP!!!! (Score:2)
DWDM (the multiplexing tech.) isn't that new, the trick is to find a router that can handle it. We can get massive bandwidth over SDH, it's getting it over IP that's tricky.
I note that the latest announcement didn't actually use the word 'IP' anywhere, but the talk of new routers implied it to me - that and the fact that if they meant SDH it wouldn't be much of a big deal.
P.S. I'm not fibre optic expert, but I think this explains the discrepancy.
Re:bit vs. byte (Score:2)
b = bit
B = byte
Slashdot articles routinly use these interchangably, leading to long discussion threads about whether the new hard drive (for instance) really has a capacity of 800GB or only 100GB (800Gb). This is a waste of everyone's time.