I would also think that the chances of running 10Gb Ethernet over current
cabling is very small. I'm surprised that Gb Ethernet runs over cat5, but I
noticed that it's a new variation on Cat5 (cat5e? I believe). So if people
have to start running new cables to make 10Gb ethernet work, it could take
even longer for it to become widely used. As I understand it, that's why
100Mb ethernet was accepted so quickly because people could run it over
existing cat5 cable installations.
Mike W.
Irwin Lazar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The only problem with 10GB Ethernet is that the standard is about 2 years
> away from ratification. For the next few years, interoperability is going
> to be a large concern.
>
> Irwin
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Byron Bean [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 10:22 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: ATM
>
>
> speaking of 10Gb Ethernet ... anyone who lives in the NY area, there was a
> good article in the NY Times a few days ago about 1Gb and 10Gb Ethernet
with
>
> sales projections for the next few years. Good read.
>
> Byron Bean, CCNA
>
>
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Nemeth)
> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Nemeth)
> >To: "Mark Holloway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "K Sacca"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >CC: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: ATM
> >Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:55:27 -0700
> >
> >On Oct 29, 6:28am, "Mark Holloway" wrote:
> >}
> >} You honestly think ATM is going to take over Gigabit? ATM had its
chance
>
> >in
> >
> > I don't think it has a chance.
> >
> >} business. ATM on the WAN is still growing rapidly, but ATM on the LAN
is
> >
> > Actually with technologies such as 10GbE (expected in the next
> >year or so), [CD]WDM, MPLS, lamba switching (switching of light rays),
> >etc. I expect that ATM will soon start to die in the WAN as well,
> >except for legacy networks. ATM is just too expensive, complicated,
> >and inefficient. It has a 9.4 per cent raw overhead per cell and when
> >you add in all the gobbledygook necessary to actually use it, the
> >overhead supposedly comes to 24.5 per cent. On the bottom of page 298
> >in TND, Priscilla says:
> >
> >"One disadvantage of ATM is that the overhead for transmitting ATM data
> >is much higher than the overhead for transmitting traditional LAN
> >data. The 5-byte header required in each 53-byte ATM cell equals 9.4
> >percent[sic] overhead. When segmentation and reassembly and ATM
> >Adaptation Layer (AAL) functionality are added, the overhead can grow
> >to 13 bytes or 24.5 percent[sic]."
> >
> >That means that your nice OC3 connection only has a throughput of
> >117mbps. That is absolutely rediculous.
> >
> >}-- End of excerpt from "Mark Holloway"
> >
> >___________________________________
> >UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
> >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
> >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
> ___________________________________
> UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ___________________________________
> UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ---
___________________________________
UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
