As the 100 gigabit Ethernet IEEE standards are being finalized, networking vendors and service providers are gearing up for tests and demonstrations of this latest evolution of Ethernet. It has been a long wait: The transition from 10 gigabit Ethernet to 100 gigabit Ethernet has been one of the longest the networking industry has seen. Previous technology iterations happened much quicker: 100mbps Fast Ethernet was standardized in 1995 and only three years later the 1 gigabit Ethernet standard was published. Another four years later (2002) the 10 gigabit Ethernet standard was ratified. By contrast, it took eight years to get to the next logical step – an eternity in technology time.

One of the reasons for this delay may be the technology bubble that burst early in the decade, putting a damper on research and engineering spending. Work on the 100 gigabit Ethernet standard only began in earnest in 2006 with the formation of the Higher Speed Study Group (HSSG) within the IEEE 802.3 working Group.

Nonetheless, the timing for the new 100 gigabit Ethernet standard, and the first products supporting it, is almost perfect: the current economic downturn, networks requiring more bandwidth and carriers looking for ways to reduce costs all contribute to create a market ripe for expansion – provided the economics are workable. John D’Ambrosia, chair of the IEEE 802.3ba task force, was recently quoted saying, “Despite the global economic slowdown, global revenue for 10G fixed Ethernet switches doubled in 2008, according to Infonetics. And there is pent-up demand for 40 gigabit and 100 gigabit Ethernet.”

Several other areas are driving the need for 100 gigabit Ethernet in the core of the network. Advanced video services are more readily available not only to television sets in homes, but also to PCs, mobile devices and other network-connected devices. User demand for better quality and the increase of pervasive video rapidly drive up bandwidth usage. In addition, both broadband access speeds and mobile speeds are rapidly increasing. Very soon consumers will be able to get 100mbps delivered to their home (compared to 3-9mbps today), while new wireless technologies such as WiMAX and LTE promise speeds of up to 75mbps and 100mbps (far eclipsing the 1-3mbps that typifies most of today’s wireless networks). Finally, cloud computing networks (grids) will be the next big driver for bandwidth, even more so than video.

100 gigabit Ethernet offers more than the ability to simply carry more data. Examples include new advanced disaster recovery networks or the ability to transform data centers into real-time “application centers” as the delay between user and server can be significantly reduced.

So while some may lead you to believe that 100 gigabit Ethernet is still far off in the future, it has been a long time in the works. And we’ll see the first products and applications come to market really soon!

Luc Ceuppens is vice president of product marketing, High-End Systems Business unit at Juniper Networks (JNPR).

In my previous blog, I mentioned the trend of running networks hotter in order to squeeze more performance out of the existing assets, delaying capacity upgrades until absolutely necessary. This discussion is not new; it is revisited every time the economy slows down. Network traffic keeps growing in spite of — or perhaps because of — the downturns, and while increasing the utilization level of the network certainly can save costs in the short term, it is not without risk, as service quality and reliability ─ and hence customer experience, might be impacted.

The first thing one might think about when looking at the possibility of running a network hot is to use capacity management tools to predict traffic flows and to tweak the network in times of stress. While this may appear to be a viable solution, the reality is that the vast majority of traffic management tools come up short in their capabilities, especially as networks get increasingly complex.

Not so long ago, running networks hot was not a prime concern of network administrators. Large-scale networks were built primarily to carry predictable and pre-provisioned voice and other deterministic circuit-oriented traffic, while the more dynamic packet-oriented data networks (frame relay, ATM, IP) were much smaller and traffic was limited and easily managed. Things have changed since then!

Today’s networks are highly dynamic and in constant state of flux. Carriers offer voice and data services, as well as video, wireless, gaming, and managed networks, frequently all on common equipment and increasingly on the same network. These complex networks have varying data patterns in addition to frequently changing services that need to be delivered to shifting endpoints. It is almost impossible to keep close track of so many moving parameters. Furthermore, as networks become more decentralized and with users at times capable of determining the routes of their traffic, capacity management may in some cases decrease the performance of a network (see Capacity Management in Decentralized Networks by Yasushi Masuda and Seungjin Whang).

There is one tool that service providers have at their disposal to run their networks hotter, while still avoiding congestion: bandwidth throttling. While many have announced they are considering it, some have already placed caps on bandwidth usage, much to the dismay of consumer rights groups and content providers. In most cases, only the heaviest users are hit at peak times, as service providers try to cope with increasing demand across their network. However, if bandwidth usage continues to grow at its current pace, it could outpace new infrastructure development in just a few years, and we can expect bandwidth throttling to become mainstream policy. This is a very real and serious problem that needs to be addressed. As early as 2007, Nemertes Research warned that the information superhighway could become clogged with data by 2010.

We are witnessing the same in the wireless access networks. An article in the Sept. 22, 2008 issue of Business Week reports that wireless companies are effectively struggling with data demand. As mobile users are increasing their use of data-intensive applications, they are switching away from plans that charge on a per-KB basis to unlimited data plans. In fact, comScore reports that between June 2007 and June 2008, there was a 58 percent increase in the number of users who subscribed to unlimited plans. While currently only 2 to 5 percent of users are affected by upper limits on “unlimited” data plans, Craig Mathias, founder of consultancy Farpoint Group, estimates that in the next year that number could double.

Prior to bandwidth throttling, service providers mostly resorted to oversubscription to increase network utilization. The real question is “how much do you oversubscribe?” The rule of thumb used to be 4:1, but it is not uncommon anymore to see 12:1, 20:1, or even higher as companies try to stretch resources to their limits. The obvious downside is that you run the risk that all users want to use their bandwidth concurrently. However, the risk is low only if oversubscription is low. Very high oversubscription ratios combined with unforeseen events that require rerouting could lead to catastrophic events leaving many customers without service, at a very high cost. Estimates of lost revenue because of network unavailability range from $2,000 per minute up to several million dollars per hour, with the impact being compounded as time increases (Forrester study, Fiber Channel Association). With the stringent SLAs service providers have to agree to today, it only takes a single event like this to wipe out any savings realized from deploying less equipment and pushing oversubscription ratios too high.

In all likelihood, service providers will run their networks a little hotter in some places –after all, everyone is trying to do more with less. But there are some networks, services and applications for which it simply isn’t an option. And even if parts of the network can run at higher utilization, there really isn’t a magic bullet on how to do it. It takes a combination of smart network planning, the right level of oversubscription and most likely some form of bandwidth throttling or traffic shaping. And of course, a little bit of foresight of the future. Crystal ball, anyone?

Luc Ceuppens is vice president of product marketing, High-End Systems Business unit at Juniper Networks(JNPR).

The current economic environment has raised many questions about what the future holds for the telecommunications and Internet industries. While no one disputes that Internet traffic continues to grow in spite of — or perhaps because of — the macroeconomic downturn, many have questioned whether service providers will continue to invest in their networks, or whether they will simply “run their networks hotter.” By running a network hot, service providers try to squeeze more performance out of their existing assets, delaying capacity upgrades until absolutely necessary. This strategy can certainly save costs in the short term, but it is not without risk, as service quality and reliability ─ especially in times of congestion – will be impacted.

In all likelihood, some service providers will run their networks hot in some places —after all, everyone is trying to do more with less. But there are some networks and services for which running hot simply isn’t an option. However, before we explore the phenomenon of running networks hotter, let us take a look at current network utilization levels. In a follow-up blog, I will explore the myths and realities of running networks hotter; where it makes sense and where it doesn’t.

Andrew Odlyzko (University of Minnesota), one of the nation's top experts on global Internet traffic, notes that while network traffic growth is strong, it doesn't necessitate upgrades. In fact, he states that 2008 was the second consecutive year that network capacity grew faster than traffic, indicating that utilization levels are going down. New data from TeleGeography's Global Internet Geography draws the same conclusion, stating that between 2007 and 2008, average utilization levels decreased from 31 percent to 29 percent, while peak utilization fell from 44 percent to 43 percent. However, the overall trend toward lower network utilization levels belies significant regional differences. While utilization on international links to Europe and Asia fell in 2008, traffic growth outpaced the deployment of new Internet bandwidth in the United States, Canada and Latin America.

These reports are contradictory to the stories of future floods of video wreaking havoc on the Internet. They are also inconsistent with the feedback we are receiving from our customers. So, why the difference?

As Odlyzko mentions on his Web site, he uses publicly available traffic statistics that are not a representative sample of all traffic on the Internet. The 100 or so sites he monitors are mostly public Internet exchanges and academic networks, and include very few private companies or commercial service providers. This means his data doesn’t take into account private peering, which is by far the most common method of interconnection for the Internet. Hence, he warns, great care should be taken in drawing any conclusions about the overall state of the Internet from the analysis and data on his site.

Furthermore, simply looking at historical data to model future traffic growth is fine in a deterministic environment (like the stable TDM networks in the past). But what if something unpredictable happens? Statistical models can’t project when the knee in a bandwidth utilization curve may happen, just like they couldn’t predict the events leading up to the current economic crisis.

I believe we are right at the beginning of the unpredictable; we are witnessing yet another behavioral shift. Just like the music industry had to transform itself after the introduction of the MP3 player, the broadcasting industry will have to reinvent itself to survive the coming wave of Internet-based entertainment. Technology such as AppleTV, Sling, Roku, Xbox, PS3, or the new Blockbuster set-top box) are likely to cause a dramatic shift in consumer viewing behavior. For the skeptics, just look what the iPod did to the music industry. If your family is anything like mine, TV viewing time is going down rapidly in favor of using computers and the Internet for entertainment. And this behavioral shift will cause a surge in traffic that could stress the networks to the breaking point. So far, these traffic spikes were caused by individual events such as the Super Bowl, the US Open golf tournament, or the Obama inauguration, which caused clear failures and traffic drops in at least two networks during the traffic peaks. Just imagine what will happen if primetime high-definition TV (multicast) and video-on-demand (unicast) are delivered over these networks.

Yet another interesting angle in this debate is the impact of traffic growth on the access network versus the core network. The access network is really where the bottleneck is. Core networks use advances in DWDM technology to continuously increase the capacity carried over a pair of fibers. Links that previously supported eight or 16 channels at 2.5gbps, can now carry 64 or more channels at 10 or even 40gbps, with 100gbps per channel just around the corner. In the access network, however, the endpoint of each line has to be upgraded individually: Higher bandwidth on a cable network may require a DOCSIS 3.0 cable modem; higher speed on a copper loop may require VDSL which can serve only shorter distances; FTTH carries steep deployment costs. One area where there are definite signs of rapid data traffic growth is wireless. Accommodating the growing number of high-speed broadband mobile devices requires upgrading the radio access network, which is limited not only by the number of connections it can support, but also by the total amount of bandwidth that it can deliver (see my earlier blog on the Mobile (R)evolution).

The above examples show that networks are straining to accommodate the growing traffic. While the access network seems to be the biggest bottleneck, our customers are telling us they need to keep adding bandwidth to the core of the network as well. In fact, they have been doing so since the Internet became mainstream 10 years ago. Yet, the Internet was always able to adapt and survive. Throughout the last decade it continuously transformed itself to support the flood of new applications and traffic it had to carry. In the early days, the network strained to support images, then animated images, followed by flash video and more recently streaming video. Along the way, the number of users kept growing, families added more computers and worldwide adoption continued at a rapid pace. The addition of high-definition video is the latest challenge for this relatively young medium, but we can be pretty sure it won’t be the last. It will survive; have faith in the broadband revolution!

Luc Ceuppens is vice president of product marketing, High-End Systems Business unit at Juniper Networks(JNPR).