From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFB623CB3D for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2018 04:59:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 3140EB1; Thu, 15 Feb 2018 10:59:46 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1518688786; bh=9Am6Bxb/GpINtORpFyW2b/XK3SpAISBPKXyW7DB7nEE=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=lnV89MqcMWeozKupUPg0eoUfYgT7AlGr37A3bMRoy49IE1P7WHwHb5A1Zk/uG7ayM aDo+RtADjl8vHQr+ejnWWsFN9geyeiLCkpy62+5BCwMj9Av1Yp9pnRzwd+9yVf3R54 eQ81UP6E/msOdH0msgibvKAjrAZS8JfilbRy3Xwg= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EC62B0; Thu, 15 Feb 2018 10:59:46 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 10:59:46 +0100 (CET) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: =?UTF-8?Q?Joel_Wir=C4=81mu_Pauling?= cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="-137064504-1500795667-1518688786=:3478" 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: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 09:59:47 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. ---137064504-1500795667-1518688786=:3478 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Thu, 15 Feb 2018, Joel Wirāmu Pauling wrote: > 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. Problem with multimode fibers (that I imagine all above are) is that they have really low reach at higher speeds. So if your goal is to support 100G cheaply, I doubt the above will work very well. Looking at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6192181/ "100G transmission over GI-POF is demonstrated by using 112-Gb/s PolMux-QPSK modulation and digital coherent detection. The transmission distance over 100m and simplified coupling method is suitable for optical data-center applications." PolMux-QPSK is never going to be cheap'n'easy, it requires substantial amount of components and processing power at both ends of the fiber. For cheap GI-POF 1000BASE-RH has been defined http://www.ieee802.org/3/GEPOFSG/email/pdfKiCuEsVuMv.pdf but it's only 1GE. I doubt POF is a solution to your 10GE/100GE transmission speeds requirement. So I think the conclusion basically is: 10GE and up is hard. There are real physical limitations here. I would be very happy if we could prove Shannon wrong. :P https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Hartley_theorem -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se ---137064504-1500795667-1518688786=:3478--