5 ms·

2.5 Gbps will be an intermediary standard for consumer ethernet applications because existing CAT5(e) cabling can usually carry 2.5 Gbps (but not 5 Gbps or 10 G

2.5 Gbps will be an intermediary standard for consumer ethernet applications because existing CAT5(e) cabling can usually carry 2.5 Gbps (but not 5 Gbps or 10 Gbps).

eropple 7y ago
Cat6/Cat6a can, however, and that's become a standard run--so the 2.5G "stepping stone" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. (House is a mix of Cat6a and optical/SFP+ 10G networking and it is tremendous.)
Dylan16807 7y ago
For 100 meters. A typical consumer doesn't need that much length, and can use higher speeds even over bad cables. Especially if the cables aren't bundled for a significant distance.
paulmd 7y ago
CAT5e is not in-spec for 10 Gbps but it will usually do it for short runs. Under ten meters, worth a try. The official spec is 100m and the transceivers are pretty solid at pulling a signal out of the noise. Personally I'm with the other guy, I think this is a dumb half-measure and we should just move straight to 10 Gbps. Right now the single biggest cost in your household multi-gig deployment will be switches, a switch with 4-8 10Gbase-T ports will run you around $500, and this figure is not really any cheaper with multi-gig. You are paying through the nose for something that is a watered-down version of the "real standard". Say you have two switches, one is upstairs and one is downstairs, are you really going to drop $1000 on a half-baked deployment? People need to try it, figure out if their existing cable is stable enough for their needs (maybe that segment can run at 5gbit speeds and it can be 10 gbit on your machines and on the switch), and just pull cable where it's not.
- p1necone 7y ago
  Will it gracefully degrade automatically to a slower speed if the cable isn't up to snuff, or will it just not work?
  - ksec 6y ago
    In normal circumstances it should degrade just like 1Gbps to 100Mbps.
    - p1necone 6y ago
      In that case it does seem like there's no reason to keep anything at 2.5 because of compatibility.
- mastax 7y ago
  Multigig switches are expensive because they're new. The products have NRE expense to pay off and so do the chips inside them. There's not yet the volume to make them really cheap. They will get cheaper. The question is will they get cheaper faster than 10G? Perhaps. Despite being 14 years old 10G is just starting to get put into reasonably priced prosumer switches so it doesn't have that much of a head start practically.
  - ksec 6y ago
    I have been thinking for a long time if having Switches that is limiting in total bandwidth would help save cost. Example you dont need 40Gbps on a 4 Port 10Gbps switch, or a 20Gbps on a 4 Port 5Gbps Switch. For Consumer usage, you only really need to be able to sustain Maximum speed on 1 port, while others working at a lower speed or next speed grade down.
ksec 6y ago
Well yes, but there are also a whole lots of CAT6x cables. CAT6 is now close to 20 years standard, and CAT6A or in earlier cases CAT6e is now 12 years +. As a matter of fact within consumer Home usage distance CAT5e may well be good enough for 5Gbps as well. Having 5Gbps End point gives you much more flexibility, instead we got 2.5Gbps. Unless the BOM cost made a lot of difference I dont understand this trade offs. Especially considering we have 802.11ax potentially offering 5Gbps+ and 802.11ay that runs faster then 10Gbps. We are coming in an age where a cheaper Wireless equipment is outrunning our wired counterpart.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  There's no cat6e, that's all mislabeling. > 802.11ax potentially offering 5Gbps+ and 802.11ay that runs faster then 10Gbps Well, ax is at best about 1Gbps per antenna, and even with MIMO I'm pretty doubtful you'd ever beat 2.5 in practice. ay is faster but it works inside a single room. It's for peripherals, not home networking.

2.5 Gbps will be an intermediary standard for consumer ethernet applications because existing CAT5(e) cabling can usually carry 2.5 Gbps (but not 5 Gbps or 10 Gbps).

eropple 7y ago

Cat6/Cat6a can, however, and that's become a standard run--so the 2.5G "stepping stone" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. (House is a mix of Cat6a and optical/SFP+ 10G networking and it is tremendous.)

Dylan16807 7y ago

For 100 meters. A typical consumer doesn't need that much length, and can use higher speeds even over bad cables. Especially if the cables aren't bundled for a significant distance.

paulmd 7y ago

CAT5e is not in-spec for 10 Gbps but it will usually do it for short runs. Under ten meters, worth a try. The official spec is 100m and the transceivers are pretty solid at pulling a signal out of the noise. Personally I'm with the other guy, I think this is a dumb half-measure and we should just move straight to 10 Gbps. Right now the single biggest cost in your household multi-gig deployment will be switches, a switch with 4-8 10Gbase-T ports will run you around $500, and this figure is not really any cheaper with multi-gig. You are paying through the nose for something that is a watered-down version of the "real standard". Say you have two switches, one is upstairs and one is downstairs, are you really going to drop $1000 on a half-baked deployment? People need to try it, figure out if their existing cable is stable enough for their needs (maybe that segment can run at 5gbit speeds and it can be 10 gbit on your machines and on the switch), and just pull cable where it's not.

p1necone 7y ago
Will it gracefully degrade automatically to a slower speed if the cable isn't up to snuff, or will it just not work?
- ksec 6y ago
  In normal circumstances it should degrade just like 1Gbps to 100Mbps.
  - p1necone 6y ago
    In that case it does seem like there's no reason to keep anything at 2.5 because of compatibility.
mastax 7y ago
Multigig switches are expensive because they're new. The products have NRE expense to pay off and so do the chips inside them. There's not yet the volume to make them really cheap. They will get cheaper. The question is will they get cheaper faster than 10G? Perhaps. Despite being 14 years old 10G is just starting to get put into reasonably priced prosumer switches so it doesn't have that much of a head start practically.
- ksec 6y ago
  I have been thinking for a long time if having Switches that is limiting in total bandwidth would help save cost. Example you dont need 40Gbps on a 4 Port 10Gbps switch, or a 20Gbps on a 4 Port 5Gbps Switch. For Consumer usage, you only really need to be able to sustain Maximum speed on 1 port, while others working at a lower speed or next speed grade down.

ksec 6y ago

Well yes, but there are also a whole lots of CAT6x cables. CAT6 is now close to 20 years standard, and CAT6A or in earlier cases CAT6e is now 12 years +. As a matter of fact within consumer Home usage distance CAT5e may well be good enough for 5Gbps as well. Having 5Gbps End point gives you much more flexibility, instead we got 2.5Gbps. Unless the BOM cost made a lot of difference I dont understand this trade offs. Especially considering we have 802.11ax potentially offering 5Gbps+ and 802.11ay that runs faster then 10Gbps. We are coming in an age where a cheaper Wireless equipment is outrunning our wired counterpart.

Dylan16807 6y ago
There's no cat6e, that's all mislabeling. > 802.11ax potentially offering 5Gbps+ and 802.11ay that runs faster then 10Gbps Well, ax is at best about 1Gbps per antenna, and even with MIMO I'm pretty doubtful you'd ever beat 2.5 in practice. ay is faster but it works inside a single room. It's for peripherals, not home networking.