Greater than Gigabit speeds over Copper

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Are there any draft plans for speeds greater than Gigabit over copper? Are
there any specifications in the works to use Cat6 cabling?

Thanks.

--
Lucas Tam (REMOVEnntp@rogers.com)
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/
9 answers Last reply
More about greater gigabit speeds copper
  1. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Lucas Tam wrote:

    > Are there any draft plans for speeds greater than Gigabit over copper? Are
    > there any specifications in the works to use Cat6 cabling?-


    There's 10 gig over copper in the works, but don't know the details.

    So far there is nothing in the works that will _require_ CAT6 except a few
    pipe dreams by the cable manufacturers.
    >
    > Thanks.
    >

    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  2. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Lucas Tam <REMOVEnntp@rogers.com> wrote:
    >Are there any draft plans for speeds greater than Gigabit over copper?

    Not that you couldn't, but why would you need to? [I won't say
    there's no point, someone can always come up with some use for extra
    bandwidth, but most places can't even use the full bandwidth of
    100BaseT to the desktop today, so gigabit is overkill...]

    Wouldn't fiber be the next step up?

    --
    William Smith
    ComputerSmiths Consulting, Inc. www.compusmiths.com
  3. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    In article <s06l70h49i78he414h412upjrmnsskco5e@4ax.com>, William P.N.
    Smith <> says...
    > Not that you couldn't, but why would you need to? [I won't say
    > there's no point, someone can always come up with some use for extra
    > bandwidth, but most places can't even use the full bandwidth of
    > 100BaseT to the desktop today, so gigabit is overkill...]
    >
    > Wouldn't fiber be the next step up?

    In datacenters, 10G or higher makes sense as people collapse more and
    more servers to a centralized super-servers. IT business is cyclical
    and the MF like functionality is coming back.

    Copper 10G is important because it's easy to roll it in data centers.
    Fiber is much more of a hassle.


    --

    hsb

    "Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
    *************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
    ********************************************************************
    Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
    reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
    ********************************************************************
  4. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 01:43:44 GMT, Lucas Tam <REMOVEnntp@rogers.com>
    wrote:

    >Are there any draft plans for speeds greater than Gigabit over copper? Are
    >there any specifications in the works to use Cat6 cabling?
    >
    >Thanks.

    10GE over twinaxial was approved recently:
    http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2004/0227gig.html

    I read somewhere that there's an IEEE study group looking into 10GE
    over standard UTP.

    -Terry
  5. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Lucas Tam <REMOVEnntp@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94C8DCF6BDC1Enntprogerscom@140.99.99.130>...
    > Are there any draft plans for speeds greater than Gigabit over copper? Are
    > there any specifications in the works to use Cat6 cabling?
    >
    > Thanks.

    You might be able to get some information that is publicly
    available on this at:
    http://www.ieee802.org/3/an/index.html.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Hansang Bae wrote:

    >>Not that you couldn't, but why would you need to? [I won't say
    >>there's no point, someone can always come up with some use for extra
    >>bandwidth, but most places can't even use the full bandwidth of
    >>100BaseT to the desktop today, so gigabit is overkill...]

    >>Wouldn't fiber be the next step up?

    > In datacenters, 10G or higher makes sense as people collapse more and
    > more servers to a centralized super-servers. IT business is cyclical
    > and the MF like functionality is coming back.

    Within a datacenter, though it might still be a little fast for
    most machines today. You can then run it through a switch
    with gigabit to the clients.

    > Copper 10G is important because it's easy to roll it in data centers.
    > Fiber is much more of a hassle.

    There might also be a short distance standard like 1000baseCX,
    not that I ever knew anyone to use that.

    -- glen
  7. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    > Hansang Bae wrote:
    > > In datacenters, 10G or higher makes sense as people collapse more and
    > > more servers to a centralized super-servers. IT business is cyclical
    > > and the MF like functionality is coming back.

    In article <XrHec.23768$wP1.54064@attbi_s54>, gah@ugcs.caltech.edu says...
    > Within a datacenter, though it might still be a little fast for
    > most machines today. You can then run it through a switch
    > with gigabit to the clients.

    Not 10G for the servers, but for switch to switch connections. As you
    add more 1Gig capable servers to switches, they start to need bigger
    pipes to talk to the rest of the world. Our OSA (GigE) connections, as
    well as shared server segments (will very soon) need bigger up links.
    Gig Etherchannel and the like are becoming a hassle.


    --

    hsb

    "Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
    *************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
    ********************************************************************
    Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
    reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
    ********************************************************************
  8. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    Hansang Bae <uonr@alp.ee.pbz> writes:

    >> Hansang Bae wrote:
    >> > In datacenters, 10G or higher makes sense as people collapse more and
    >> > more servers to a centralized super-servers. IT business is cyclical
    >> > and the MF like functionality is coming back.

    >In article <XrHec.23768$wP1.54064@attbi_s54>, gah@ugcs.caltech.edu says...
    >> Within a datacenter, though it might still be a little fast for
    >> most machines today. You can then run it through a switch
    >> with gigabit to the clients.

    >Not 10G for the servers, but for switch to switch connections. As you
    >add more 1Gig capable servers to switches, they start to need bigger
    >pipes to talk to the rest of the world. Our OSA (GigE) connections, as
    >well as shared server segments (will very soon) need bigger up links.
    >Gig Etherchannel and the like are becoming a hassle.

    I can confirm that point of view / direction of development for our datacenter.
    However, we already run fibre for switch-switch connections, and I don't see
    a need to change this when we upgrade the interswitch links to 10GE. Once
    we need to do that upgrade, the port density of GE aggregation switches
    will be high enough to amortize the fibre cost over their ports, same as
    it is now with our 100baseT aggregation.

    To me copper 10GE can only make sense where existing wiring is CAT5 only,
    and the cost to run fibre would be very high due to local constraints.
    Maybe large buildings wired CAT5 only, where no more room to run new
    cables between floors exists, and the old cables would need to be
    replaced / disentangled? Dunno, in our vertical cabling between floors,
    we ran fibre along with copper in the first place.

    best regards
    Patrick
  9. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

    William P.N. Smith <> wrote in news:s06l70h49i78he414h412upjrmnsskco5e@
    4ax.com:

    > Lucas Tam <REMOVEnntp@rogers.com> wrote:
    >>Are there any draft plans for speeds greater than Gigabit over copper?

    > Wouldn't fiber be the next step up?

    Exactly, that's what I thought. I was having a convo on another forums
    about the so-called benefits of Cat6 : )


    --
    Lucas Tam (REMOVEnntp@rogers.com)
    Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
    http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/
Ask a new question

Read More

Ethernet Card Email Networking