From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yw0-x236.google.com (mail-yw0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B2373CB35 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:13:24 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-yw0-x236.google.com with SMTP id v139so15884546ywg.4 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:13:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=aenertia.net; s=dkimaenertianet; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Wqj7jtXfDy59fOJx+9qRxI8KsuT/eLXfGpezF+jqrXg=; b=Ur+XmSnspSUPdrGWd7S1sI2usJrOgLXGLgHBTsgeiAU/72P6jJ+cMNSNnueR0N1/r+ MI4Sfyv+PBkrTr3tOEfR/PY9HaJXGbY+NTSRWJY6UGtorXvwU39VhcL4ZuDvGi7bXs6b oSAxmFyHrAYPBeKPSsgGSfhvVTC9q46UuR1Yo= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Wqj7jtXfDy59fOJx+9qRxI8KsuT/eLXfGpezF+jqrXg=; b=lDCHSyHYlyL386UJJTSOxAehNfmotFfAy4yv6unje61FDm/tjKyr5W1vWtjESjQwwR KeSm8eQY/3lBsDTmqRgrb4LwqciXEiYaey2+HQ1pjrzysr3FEkJ6D6dH9FaNH56aRHYJ 6NS+te9WMDt58dSztWv2zuz8IPG2oFRegWrZV5N/tEjYTH7yHaYBDGNIWSIk36HNlv4/ AMeobiK3k6XGAf+nvQbQGSF2McISoEby1KV4oM5ew1uy1NJxs4P4L+lKw/ZEOQzJeQYw q/I6oP5WdGR5+V7XMtUm0B5TVtMPokATS13uD7ovZ6Keke1a5hZciNOcyOJnBTxml0Sn Go3A== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPDYnr71L2UNuJ5d+Gwn497KLbb4eEUa0+bRzew97Owu/47sbKvw UsqXcbDBwevG1sACn12E+1IqHCdKqpf5HJNiVCg+/w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x227r33/inYIRAk0CJVI0ZjLd85td9KBNECF9YZ26MSzrg9LxrFNBpZyeM7HQnqlz8mYE7/Ol2ENuV37euRWHrcQ= X-Received: by 10.37.50.18 with SMTP id y18mr555934yby.417.1518646403602; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:13:23 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: aenertia@aenertia.net Received: by 2002:a25:53c1:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:13:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: =?UTF-8?Q?Joel_Wir=C4=81mu_Pauling?= Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 11:13:03 +1300 X-Google-Sender-Auth: BVKn1qve18gV_jb-5R4GyZVYIac Message-ID: To: Mikael Abrahamsson Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] LCA 2018 talk available X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 22:13:24 -0000 If POF (Plastic Optical Fibre) like install methods can be scaled up to Polymer/Glass runs (Sharpie knife slicing/jam into receptor). I don't see this being the problem. Depending on the Sheathing fibre is just as good as UTP cabling. Magnitudes cheaper too. When I learnt of POF I was excited, until I learned how it's severely limited in the bandwidth/frequency transmission department. I guess if we could get some sort of Clamp-on USB-C style adaptor for fibre would probably be the ideal. I don't really see why this couldn't work with MPO style fibre. On 15 February 2018 at 02:21, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Thu, 15 Feb 2018, Joel Wir=C4=81mu Pauling wrote: > >> Again it's not the speed, it's the throughput. TB3 delivers near to what >> my local x86 can do in terms of throughput. Also network should never be >> slower than disc. Since NVME has been around this is no-longer true. It'= s an >> unnatural order of things. > > > Having done networking since mid 80-ties, having the network be slower th= an > disk has been the reality, forever, for me. The only time this might not > have been true would be in the beginning of 1GBASE time, where single HDD= s > were slower than network. With in 10BASE-2 days, HDDs were doing a magnit= ude > higher transfer speeds compared to network. Running NFS was slow compared= to > local drive. > >> Cabling is the issue in my mind right now. Every laptop with tb3 ports >> has 10G+ capability, if passive optical long run was cheap and easily >> available for tb3 then half the problem would already be solved. > > > Cabling fiber is unfortunately always quite a lot harder and more > complicated than copper, that's why RJ45 won. Having factory-made fiber > cable with USB-C connectors at each end might work, if the active > electronics can be made small enough. Think pulling these through holes i= n > walls, through cable management etc. Unfortunately I doubt these will rea= ch > enough volume in near time to really become widely used due to their init= ial > high cost. > >> Maybe 10G over cat6a will be ok as the evolution. But you have to go to >> cat8 to get anything beyond 10G... so the cabling situation and incentiv= e to >> upgrade to future-proof isn't there. > > > If we need higher than 10G speeds, then yes, fiber is the next natural > evolution. I don't know how we're going to make single-mode fiber somethi= ng > that the average user can handle without problems. There are advantages > though. > > I am getting FTTH now. The cable they're putting is looks like this: > > https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=3D10154951833141595&set=3Dp.10154= 951833141595&type=3D3&theater > > It has 3 strands and it's single mode. > > So if we can light up these at a good cost/power/size compromise, the cab= les > can be made extremely thin. Still wondering how the connectors etc are go= ing > to look like to make this end user friendly. > > > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se