OC192 - 9.6 gigabits per second

[FrEstYle29]

where is this used? its the fastest possible connection i heard

9.6 gigabits per second !!!!!!!!
i cant fathom that much speed

 

[KameLeon]

OC256 is the fastest, actually!
and It's not like 9.6 gigabits per second going into one computer! LOL..
The whole network shares the bandwidth!

 

[jaybert]

large corporations dont even use it. Only people who would even use it would be internet backbones, and we're talking bout the major backbones, not the smaller ones

 

[JoPalm]

Isn't oc192 much faster then that?

 

[Howard]

No. OCx is simply x times roughly 45Mbps (or is it MBps?).

 

[DRGrim]

So OC256 would be ... about 11.3 Gbps.

I wonder how much one of those things cost?

 

[Soccerman]

yikes, I thought they were much higher then that..

that's what I get from looking into the future too much.. My senses have been dulled!

 

[PliotronX]

Worldcom demonstrated an optical fiber repeater capable of sustaining 1.1 Terabits per second

Optical fiber connections are used for backbones and the cost starts at over $100,000 monthly for an OC12 I think. Generally, ISPs use the money they make from customers whom use the bandwidth individually (be it hundreds or thousands of 56ks, or hundreds of broadband connections) to pay off the monthly cost for the backbone. And they usually oversell the bandwidth... the bastards. The onslaught of Terabit connections will (hopefully) offer more bandwidth available to the end users for the same prices.

 

[JoPalm]

I just looked it up. OC192's bandwidth is 9.92 Gbps, and thats only 1 channel too .
You can go over 1.1 Tb for sure depending on how many channels you have.

 

[odog]

i thought it was 16 Gbps... but damn i was wrong.. it's 13 Gbps.. at one OC is 51 Mbps(megabits yucky) so it's 51Mbps X 256 = 13 Gbps

check this site out

 

[Soccerman]

here's the future I see of the Internet (why am I saying this?? I don't know).

it will die!

to be replaced by the Internet 2 (which is already running, and is far superior, in terms of features!).

some really interesting ideas I came up with when I read an article in a Scientific American about optical switching/routing.. The main problem isn't how much data can be crammed into a Fiber optic cable, it's how fast the routers/switches can route/switch the data. looking at each individual packet takes time! converting from Optic to Electric to Optic takes time and money!

So, what you do then is designate each 'area' of the internet a frequency range, and as you get closer and closer to the end user, the smaller the range is.

So, in one of the main backbone cables, you can expect to see many different wavelengths of light going through, each goes to it's own general area, to be split up even more by the equipment there. As soon as you reach the point where the transmitted data is one single wavelength, you can convert to electronics for individual packet routing/switching.

it might appear to mean that the fiber optic cables nearest to you go to waste, but that isn't so. You have to send data too (which is what 1/2 of the internet is based on, sending data). So when the data you send needs to be converted into fiber, it is converted to the wavelength that the ip address specified in the packet is associated with.

this means that the bottleneck isn't in the backbone, it's in the place where Optical to electronic conversion occurs (which is alot lower then the backbone).

Also, it may be easier to go fiber+copper, copper being your downstream, and Fiber your upstream. Why such an odd arrangement? well you just need to know what wavelength will get your data to the fiber-electronic converter node nearest the destination. it is alot harder to assign a specific wavelength to each IP address (actually I think that would make IP addressing nearly obsolete), becuase I don't think current technology is cost effective enough to create enough different wavelengths.

 

[kombatmud]

OC-1 is 51Mbps, which makes OC-192 9.7Gbps and OC-256 13Gbps. They're extraordinarily expensive. We've got 2 OC-3s here, and I believe they cost $158,000 a month each. If they scaled exactly, that would make an OC-192 $10,100,000 a month and an OC-256 $13,500,000 a month approximately. I don't believe that they do scale exactly like that though. Either way, they are used exclusively for large internet backbones such as global crossing. They are usually used for situations such as connecting the east coast to the west coast, etc.

 

[interchange]

We have a dual OC-3 at my school (Georgia Tech), but we have huge issues with the internal network and the routing, particularly through bbnplanet (our ISP) and sprintlink. It almost makes the connection not worth it, particularly when you put it on a 10baseT network through most of campus, and some really awful hub usage statistics (resnet usage).

Anything larger than this are backbone-caliber.

 

[SUOrangeman]

Did someone say Instant Napster? Hehe.

I'm sure most trans-oceanic (I just invented that word) connections are on high-end of OC speeds. The banking/finance industry alone prolly consumes it.

-SUO

 

[thorin]

"OC256 is the fastest, actually! "

WRONG!

OPTera solutions from NortelNetworks are actually the fastest starting at 1.6TeraBits Per Second. I'll find you some press releases and link them up tonight or tomorrow.

Thorin

 

[SerraYX]

My father works for Verizon and often installs OC-3's all the way up to 20's for "common" big business use. 192 is only for those giant internet services. It is VERY expensive to buy the cable, setup, and maintain. I have a 2ft section of wire here, vry cool looking

 

[mlusr]

Never heard of OC256.
OC(Optical Carrier)768 would be next level.

 

[odog]

yeah i remember the optera 1600 press release as well....

i believe it was last year sometime, when they publically demostrated it.

 

[austonia]

i operate directly on the Sprint backbane, we use OC48 SONET ring configurations. no OC192's acutally installed yet. We do have bigger capacity than this on one fiber, however. We use (primarily) Ciena DWDM (Dense Wave Division Multiplexors) to fit 40 OC48's on each physical fiber. We are in final stages of testing an Alcatel 80 window system. With a few mouse clicks, we can switch, restore, or (woops) drop millions of calls

 

[shiznut123]

I wonder which big companies use OC256. Maybe EB@Y?Maybe Microsoft?Maybe Cisco?

 

[nEoTeChMaN]

That what my Counter-Strike server need!!!!

 

[austonia]

i have not heard of any vendor using OC256. there is OC192 and then OC768 by industry standard, and that has not been deployed in the field by any provider as far as i'm aware. god... i can imagine the nightmares of a span failing with 768 DS3's on it... bad enough with 40, believe me.

 

[Howard]

SUOrangeman -

Main Entry: trans·oce·an·ic
Pronunciation: "tran(t)s-"O-shE-'a-nik, "tranz-
Function: adjective
Date: 1827
1 : lying or dwelling beyond the ocean
2 : crossing or extending across the ocean <a transoceanic telephone cable>

 

[jaybert]

Internet2 is basically only used by .edus. I havent really heard of any .coms or whatever that use i2

 

[Hanpan]

I rember a few short years ago when oc-12 was teh best. AS for the big lines generally those are teh backbone of the internet. I am not sure if anyone owns them per se.