

Europe and Japan Aiming to Build 100Gbps Fibre Optic Internet - llamataboot
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2013/07/europe-and-japan-aiming-to-build-100gbps-fibre-optic-internet.html

======
robmil
As a Londoner who recently got a 1Gbps up/down connection, I can't wait for
this; the limiting factor in saturating my connection is now the rest of the
'net, rather than my own connection — which is actually oddly frustrating.
Catch up already!

~~~
rasur
It makes one think that perhaps delivering content via a protocol such as
BitTorrent is not such a bad idea, since often a limiting factor can be the
upstream bandwidth of a site (although obviously this might not work too well
for all use-cases, a Torrent-based CDN of some type might still have some kind
of future).

~~~
Locke1689
Without some special agreement from the upper tier service providers or a Ono-
like plugin, this is probably not a good idea.

~~~
rasur
I would be very grateful if you could go into a little bit more depth with
regards to what you mean here on both the special agreement and the ono-like
plugin (a google for this showed nothing pertinent, but maybe I'm just being
especially dumb?). Thanks!

~~~
Locke1689
Sure. Ono is a plugin for the Vuze/Azureus Bittorrent client[1]. It attempts
to find peers closest to you.

The reason why increased Bittorrent traffic is that the Bittorrent protocol
doesn't require any specific selection of peers. This means that you can have
excessive traffic from other areas, which plays havoc with Tier 1 ISP peer
agreements. If the protocol isn't modified to work in conjunction with
peering, I would expect ISPs to simply kill Bittorrent traffic.

[1] [http://aqualab.cs.northwestern.edu/projects/118-ono-
reducing...](http://aqualab.cs.northwestern.edu/projects/118-ono-
reducing-p2p-cross-isp-traffic-while-improving-users-performance)

~~~
rasur
Thanks - I see your point now. You're right, finding closer peers would be
very beneficial in this case.

------
packetslave
The current problem with 100gb is it's _really_ expensive to implement the
backhaul. A 100gb linecard from Juniper is between $250-500k list!

~~~
virtuallynathan
You can get them for MUCH lower than that - the line card & optics costs of
100G are falling pretty quickly. Newer routers with >4x100G (e.g. 10x) will be
pretty interesting (CFP2).

~~~
ceph_
The way the article conflates backbone link speed with end user connection
speeds really irks me. For backbone link capacity, yes native 100G interfaces
are a step forward, but not in the way most people are going to assume. 100G
of capacity is not a significant amount, either in 1x100G or 10x10G, when you
already have optical transport equipment that can mux over 5T of capacity onto
a single fiber pair.

It is exciting the increases 100G coherent DWDM technologies bring in raising
the capacity as well as the reach of transport systems.

~~~
packetslave
As we continue to shove more and more bits down a single strand of fiber,
100gb+ interfaces are going to continue to be more important, though. It
doesn't scale to send 5T down an optical system if you still have to break it
out into tons of 10gb LAGs to use it.

------
ksec
There is definitely a need. In 3 years time we could get Dual 10 Core CPU on a
server with PCI-E Based SSD card at insane IOPS speed for a very reasonable
price. So very soon, year or so we will be bottlenecked by our Network Port.
And I dont see 10Gbit Ethernet price coming down anytime soon.

------
mtgx
Good, future-proof goal. We'll need better Wi-fi technologies, too. 802.11ac
is nice, but 2x faster speed doesn't seem like a huge improvement after 5
years or so of research (802.11ad doesn't count).

~~~
Systematica
Apparently 100Gps wireless already exists, not that they'll let the general
public have access to the technology for the next 30 years...

[http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2012/12/14.aspx](http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2012/12/14.aspx)

------
joshbaptiste
heh.. I bet the NSA can't wait to sink their hands in this link.

