I guess when we get demand we will also get microcontrollers that integrate more and more of it. Still it feels like replacing outdated solution with ill-fittin

I guess when we get demand we will also get microcontrollers that integrate more and more of it. Still it feels like replacing outdated solution with ill-fitting one. >Finally, when you need more than 8 bytes, everything falls into a heap. You have to start putting in sequence numbers (which take up parts of your 8 byte packets), holding things for reassembly, etc. Once you reach that point, you might as well just use Ethernet. But on other side ethernet overhead on just sensors is huge. The minimum payload is 46 bytes (in 64 byte frame), so sending say just a 2 byte temperature sensor data is 32x of overhead vs CANs 4x (IIRC 8 byte packet for 2 byte value. For 8 byte CAN only have 1.75x overhead while ethernet frame still has 8x overhead. So in sensor-filled device like car you'd be getting far lower real throughput than the 10Mbit/s. And the sensors will want to broadcast to whoever listens anyway so a good part of the frame is wasted. Some kind of ethernet light where say: * frames can be as short as few bytes * destination address can be skipped and receiving devices treat it as broadcast would double or triple the throughtput. > CAN MACs are not really more expensive than Ethernet MACs, and Ethernet MACs get WAY more testing. Average car have dozens, I'm pretty sure CAN MACs are tested well enough lmao, what a non-argument