4 ms·

The size of the pipe going out of your house does not matter if the upstream routers do not have #users x max_bandwidth available as well. Seeing as how state

by evgen 17y ago

The size of the pipe going out of your house does not matter if the upstream routers do not have #users x max_bandwidth available as well. Seeing as how state of the art equipment does not have enough bandwidth on the backplane to support even a small neighborhood with connection speeds like this it seems that a better description of this endeavor would "waste of effort."

DenisM 17y ago
... or "crazy fast neighborhood network", for some interesting definition of "neighborhood".
wmf 17y ago
Fast but bursty Internet connections are still worth having since a lot of Internet usage is bursty.
- evgen 17y ago
  Please define an actual use-case for 10G burst to the home. The reality is that the most important parts of the network are not the last mile, but all of the interconnects upstream and at the peering points. This sounds nice, but provides no real benefit to the end-user over a 100M connection that was actually backed by infrastructure that could maintain some reasonable fraction of this amount of bandwidth. If the amount of cash that the telco dumped into this 10G marketing ploy were actually used to upgrade the backhaul all of the users would benefit more.
  - wmf 17y ago
    I can't think of any use case for 10 Gbps to the home, so I admit this is a theoretical discussion. I also agree that backhaul is needed, but higher burst speeds don't hurt anything as long as they don't cost more.
  - Retric 17y ago
    This is a long way from nation wide adoption, but several places are rolling out 1GB connections in the next few years. Today when you give users 50MB+ connections they start using a tiny fraction of their total bandwidth. The real advantage to 1+GB links is the ability to grow the backbone as needed without caring about the last mile for a long time. Going the other way limits the adoption of services that need such high speed connections. And it's just fiber, they don't need to actually put 10GB equipment at both ends of every home, just run a cable which could in theory support those speeds.

by evgen 17y ago

DenisM 17y ago

... or "crazy fast neighborhood network", for some interesting definition of "neighborhood".

wmf 17y ago

Fast but bursty Internet connections are still worth having since a lot of Internet usage is bursty.

evgen 17y ago
Please define an actual use-case for 10G burst to the home. The reality is that the most important parts of the network are not the last mile, but all of the interconnects upstream and at the peering points. This sounds nice, but provides no real benefit to the end-user over a 100M connection that was actually backed by infrastructure that could maintain some reasonable fraction of this amount of bandwidth. If the amount of cash that the telco dumped into this 10G marketing ploy were actually used to upgrade the backhaul all of the users would benefit more.
- wmf 17y ago
  I can't think of any use case for 10 Gbps to the home, so I admit this is a theoretical discussion. I also agree that backhaul is needed, but higher burst speeds don't hurt anything as long as they don't cost more.
- Retric 17y ago
  This is a long way from nation wide adoption, but several places are rolling out 1GB connections in the next few years. Today when you give users 50MB+ connections they start using a tiny fraction of their total bandwidth. The real advantage to 1+GB links is the ability to grow the backbone as needed without caring about the last mile for a long time. Going the other way limits the adoption of services that need such high speed connections. And it's just fiber, they don't need to actually put 10GB equipment at both ends of every home, just run a cable which could in theory support those speeds.