re: Verizon Gears Up for 100 GigThey ought to be able to get their hands on something worthy of a trial, I'd think. But you may be right; I don't recall hearing much about the readiness of 100-Gig. Just lots of plans.
Or, maybe this is Verizon's way of trying to push suppliers to get to 100G faster.
re: Verizon Gears Up for 100 GigI would love to know who, reading this, is feeling good about their R&D outlay developing 10G & especially 40G right now. Maybe just one company I can think of comes to mind and I feel they are faking it a little. By 2009, hopefully expenditures toward 100G seams worthwhile.
It's so inconvenient how physics doesn't track R&D expenses and adjust accordingly to maintain profitability.
re: Verizon Gears Up for 100 GigThe only 100G products Verizon is going to get their hands on this year are hard drives for the laptops these delusional execs are carrying about.
re: Verizon Gears Up for 100 Gig"On the carrier side of things, the major consumer of bandwidth is the IP networks and they already are aggregating 10Gb links"
Maybe they are aggregating 10Gb links to get bigger pipe but r these carrier going to use single 100Gb link. They are also dividing 100Gb into 10Gb and then combining them. Fiber at 40Gb has major problem PMD what will happen at 100G. How does it matter whether IP network combines it or the carrier combine it.
re: Verizon Gears Up for 100 GigOn the carrier side of things, the major consumer of bandwidth is the IP networks and they already are aggregating 10Gb links. They needed 100G yesterday. Several presentations from the last NANOG highlighted how the divide between 40G and 100G seems to be between the server/host companies and the high BW carriers as well as the googles and yahoos of the world.
re: Verizon Gears Up for 100 GigIt really does not matter if it is 10G, 40G or 100G.
The real issue is being able to design a network to deliver the services consumers want and will pay for over a predictable period of time in order to recoup capital and operational costs.
Big, inflexible pipes require a lot of edge IP and core IP routers and switches. No wonder so many supporters.
Consumers want High Def on demand and peer to peer services. These services do not require big pipes. They require a new network architecture and cost structure not being offered by any vendor today.
Big pipes are great for metro and country inter-connect. They are crap for metro and access networks.
re: Verizon Gears Up for 100 Gigthe gap between a first PROTOTYPE lab trial at Verizon MCI labs and first real lab trial of a complete end to end system with monitoring and network manangement working and the eventual "first office" field trial...and finally the deployment of actual 100G links with live traffic is typically a few years.
given this, Verizon is right on track for timing. Test some early prototype version now. Find bugs and issues, but prove to them selves the concept works.
Real deployment few years out with lots of lab trials and field trials in between.
re: Verizon Gears Up for 100 GigA driver for 40G or 100G solutions might be to dramatically increase the density of equipment if either solution can occupy less shelf space than the corresponding 10G solution (i.e 4x10Gs or 10x10G)
I believe the physical and cost limitations on HS backplane technologies will drive the need for high speed interfaces to allow for more low speed ports on the access side and still maintain high density, low cost network equipment.
Perhaps 40G success will be determined by its ability to solve mundane issues such as better density and cheaper boxes (measured by cost per bit or by cost per access port) in the near term.
Are vendors selling a ton of 40G equipment? If not, I don't see why they should rush to 100G.
-tsat