backtop

Print 50 comment(s) - last by Hieyeck.. on Mar 11 at 9:33 AM

Cisco CRS-3 Carrier Routing System  (Source: Cisco)

The ultra-fast routing speeds of the CRS-3 should allow for greater use of advanced internet technology like 3D content (though the utility of such content is still in its nascent stages).  (Source: Arstechnica)
New network technology should be able to power an incredible online future

The internet forever changed how we live our daily lives.  However, an oft forgotten story in its success is the tireless advances in network infrastructure that allowed a massive amount of data to be delivered to home connections in such a short amount of time.

That pace does not look to be slowing, with Cisco announcing today its new CRS-3 Carrier Routing System (CRS).  The new internet "backbone" directs traffic at total transmission speeds of up to 322 Tbps.  That's over three times the speed of the Cisco's previous offering, the Cisco CRS-1 Carrier Routing System, and according to the company, twelve times as fast as closest competitive offering.

Cisco offered some stunning examples of how that speed could be put to use.  They say that it would allow "the entire printed collection of the Library of Congress to be downloaded in just over one second; every man, woman and child in China to make a video call, simultaneously; and every motion picture ever created to be streamed in less than four minutes."

The company has poured over $1.6B USD into developing its CRS products and currently it claims that there are over 5,000 CRS-1 units active in the wild.  Cisco announced that one of its customers, AT&T has become the first to trial CRS-3 powered internet in the U.S.  The AT&T trial deployment powered AT&T's service corridor spanning from New Orleans to Miami.

The new networking hardware is powered by Cisco's hexa-core QuantumFlow Array Processors, which it claims are 60 percent more power efficient than the closest competition.  They employ smart traffic routing, IPv6, and increased support for cloud computing virtual private networks (VPNs).

Even as key players in the wireless industry race to put more data in our palms faster, the CRS-3 update should help PC internet stay relevant.  With the speed it provides a wealth of online video and advanced HTML5, Silverlight, JavaFX, and Flash content should be possible.  Also, new standards such as 3D web content may soon be possible thanks to the faster transmission speeds.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
s'fine and all...
By chromal on 3/9/2010 12:27:22 PM , Rating: 5
But this sounds more like an incremental improvement than the 'change everything' revolution the cisco PR people were hinting out prior to the reveal.

Meanwhile, I've still got my choice of one ISP, who maxes out at 1.5mbps. Wanna make me sit up and notice, get me beyond 1995 broadband standards.




RE: s'fine and all...
By alanore on 3/9/2010 12:30:27 PM , Rating: 5
I know what you mean, there is a lot of investment in the backbone, but its the last mile that is the problem for home users and small businesses.


RE: s'fine and all...
By Souka on 3/9/2010 1:50:17 PM , Rating: 1
I'm liking my $40/month Comcast... 30Mbps/down, 12Mbps/up
And that's not "burst"

But this hardware is allowing more throughput on the backend...which may remove/reduce a bottleneck, and allow a single sytsem to replace several (power and rack space savings...important).


RE: s'fine and all...
By cscpianoman on 3/9/2010 2:08:59 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's apparent in some markets you are going to have some nice ISP choices and speed. Unfortunately, for a large amount of people the choice is limited to one. I know in Phoenix there is DSL and cable, but due to whatever constraint is on the lawbooks there is only one that will service a neighborhood. The result, slow speeds and high cost. -1 for capitalism.

We get rid of the monopolies and I am willing to place a hefty wager prices will go down and speeds increase with no data cap limitations.

It's a shame you have an incredible up and down and only 250GB to spend in a month


RE: s'fine and all...
By shin0bi272 on 3/9/2010 2:46:58 PM , Rating: 5
thats not capitalism... thats crony capitalism at best. Its more likely that the cable or phone company struck a deal with the local government to be the exclusive dealer for that area. Which is NOT capitalism at all now is it? If you had true capitalism you would have at least 3 companies to choose from. You want more choice stop voting for bigger government locally and nationally. The bigger the government gets the less freedom you have and these monopolies (and the health insurance companies) are a perfect example of it.


RE: s'fine and all...
By rika13 on 3/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: s'fine and all...
By gunzac21 on 3/9/2010 11:13:29 PM , Rating: 2
Well if you were to really read up on capitalism which is founded in Wealth of Nations, you would know that the government is actually suppose to play a huge role in economics. It is supposed to BREAK APART MONOPOLIES among other things. So the problem isn't how much government is involved but moreso how its getting involved. you are ASSUMING that the company made some deal with the government to get create monolpoly and IF that is true then it would be doing the exact opposite of what adam smith would want. that being said fake "capitalists" often are the ones who are first to complain when the GOV tries to break up a company that is too big (I am glad you are not one of them).

also i don't know why you are blaming only the government for all the corruption and not the company, it takes two to make a deal. BTW I am not neccesarily a capitalist the system has some major holes, one should try not to subsribe to any of these far reaching ideas and take every economic issue on a case by case fashion and not ask "what would Adam Smith, or Karl Marx, do" just do what gets your nations stronger. so the size of the gov is not the issue (at least in the US) the issue is the temtation of money and power.

ad as a sincere question to anyone that can answer this for me. If so many of you desire to strink a "democratic" government which is organized by the voices of all citiens over the age of 18 (a desicion people oft take long to decide) because it is ineffective, why do you think that an inherently more efficient corporate system organized by the buying prefrences (basically like voting) of all US shoppers who have money to spend and are often impulsive.


RE: s'fine and all...
By msomeoneelsez on 3/10/2010 8:48:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and as a sincere question to anyone that can answer this for me. If so many of you desire to shrink a "democratic" government which is organized by the voices of all citiens over the age of 18 (a decision people oft take long to decide) because it is ineffective, why do you think that an inherently more efficient corporate system organized by the buying preferences (basically like voting) of all US shoppers who have money to spend and are often impulsive. Why are they more impulsive? OR; Why do you advocate a market system?


Well, I'm going to try to answer this question for you... First I will go through your paragraph and edit it by what I believe you're trying to say... changes are in bold... So are the assumed questions, as you never really asked one...

Why are many decisions impulsive?
A: People generally do not wish to do the required research to make a truly "perfect" (from their stand-point) decision, and therefor, they see something they want, take a look at the price, and perform a very basic, and rather unconscious look at the subject using marginal analysis. Is the product worth the price? Put into better economic terms, does the product have enough value to the consumer to justify the consumer's allocation of money to the product? This is, of course, taking into account the countless other products which the consumer might want, which is generally involved in the process of finding out what the consumer even wants. What value is there to the consumer? If there is a high value, then the consumer wants it.

Why do you advocate a market system?
Because the above explanation of marginal analysis is done at the core level of humanity... Self-interest drives the decision making process. When one looks at markets, one must consider that every player is making a decision to benefit their own self-interest. Even when one gives to charity, a seemingly "self-less" act, one acts upon self-interest; it is worth it to oneself to give to charity, for whatever reason.

It is basic logic that if everyone seeks the best for themselves, and they see that screwing others over is going to be bad for themselves in the long run (quite a difficult thing to make people see, I admit,) then naturally the most efficient path will be found. Notice I do not venture to say the most efficient path will be reached; in a world which is constantly changing, and effected by billions of people and forces, I have high doubts that ultimate, 100% efficiency will ever be reached; I do, however, believe that this is the best way to stay as close as possible to 100% efficiency, as each player makes the decision closest to themselves, and thus with the most pertinent and applicable information to their respective situations.

Of course, the explanations I just gave you are somewhat abstract, but when applied to situations, it generally gives a rather accurate representation of how people act.

I hope this helped, and was actually answering the question you had. I tried to infer what your question was as best as possible, but you should probably make sure you just say it next time. That's why they force you to preview your post before posting it :D


RE: s'fine and all...
By psenechal on 3/9/2010 2:33:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm liking my $40/month Comcast... 30Mbps/down, 12Mbps/up And that's not "burst"


Wahhhh! Your Comcast is better than my Comcast and I pay more =( LOL

I only get 8Mbps/down, 2Mbps/up and I pay $63/month. I guess not all Comcast is equal. But it's that or some crappy local phone company DSL that's 1.5Mbps/down and 768Kbps/up for $45/month. Where's Surewest when you need them?


RE: s'fine and all...
By rudy on 3/9/2010 4:07:24 PM , Rating: 2
You only have those prices because you are in a competitive market where FIOS is probably one of the players. The rest of us get less even though comcast has had the ability to update easily for a long time.


RE: s'fine and all...
By Souka on 3/9/2010 6:23:17 PM , Rating: 2
Actually Verizon FIOS is not allowed by law to enter my area.... because Qwest phone operates in this area (Issaquah, WA 15miles east of Seattle). Some law having to do with big tel-coms pushing out the little ones.

Qwest does have DSL...speeds are lacking for 90% of their territory. At my house I can only get IDSL 144k up/down for $69.99 month + hardware cost. Other option is ClearWire or Satellite...yuck. My parents house, which is near Microsoft HQ can get DSL up to 1.5Mbps down for $30/month...no fiber ETA for their area.

Anyhow... peace!


RE: s'fine and all...
By messyunkempt on 3/9/2010 9:04:32 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm liking my $40/month Comcast... 30Mbps/down, 12Mbps/up


I wish i could get a half decent upload like that. I'm on 50Mbps down, yet only 1.3mbps up. Annoyingly, although there are many providers offering services n the area i live they all seem to have awful upload speeds which is super annoying when you need to transfer files of any reasonable size.


RE: s'fine and all...
By alanore on 3/10/2010 10:16:08 AM , Rating: 2
That is not bad for download rate though.

I work at a small company that is pretty far from the exchange (ADSL over the phonelines) our maximum connection speed is 3.3Mbps and similar to yourself on upload (1.5Mbps) The slow connection speed is having an increasingly negative effect, especially for video conferencing.


RE: s'fine and all...
By RabidDog on 3/9/2010 12:37:19 PM , Rating: 1
Solution:
MOVE!

No, not everywhere has high-broadband speeds. Generally it's a balance between lifestyle and connectivity.
In my case I have a choice of 3 broadband providers and currerntly getting 35M down and up. But there is a ton of crime and pollution. So there is the trade off. Odds are you have fresh air, clean living, and little crime.


RE: s'fine and all...
By harmaton on 3/9/2010 1:14:31 PM , Rating: 2
yep, couldn't agree more.

Where is the RIAA bitching about how we will pirate faster?


RE: s'fine and all...
By AstroCreep on 3/9/2010 2:05:17 PM , Rating: 2
It's only been like, three hours; give it time...


RE: s'fine and all...
By AstroCreep on 3/9/2010 2:06:17 PM , Rating: 2
Three hours since the announcement, I mean.


RE: s'fine and all...
By Shining Arcanine on 3/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: s'fine and all...
By bhieb on 3/9/2010 1:50:36 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Either go to graduate school or move to an area that has acceptable broadband speeds. You only have your negligence to blame if you do not have high speed internet.

Honestly? You and the other poster, MOVE is your option. Really one cannot wish for faster speeds where they are?

Moron renters /rollseyes

Some people have a pretty large investment in these things called houses, and now is not the best time to be selling one just for better internet speeds. Not too mention a mired of other reasons someone may have chosen where they live.

The naivety is astounding. Move well at least i LOL'd a little.


RE: s'fine and all...
By Ananke on 3/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: s'fine and all...
By Shining Arcanine on 3/10/2010 12:34:32 PM , Rating: 2
If your neighborhood goes south, will you want to stay and try to get things fixed or leave and go somewhere else? A relative of mine is in real estate and the usual answer is to move. Broadband is the same thing. If you do not like that, too bad.


RE: s'fine and all...
By Shadowself on 3/9/2010 2:05:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
1.5Mbps might have been what dedicated servers had in 1995, but it certainly was not what end-users had. In 1995, most people were not even at 56k speeds, much less 1.5Mbps. If people had 1.5Mbps internet connections in 1995, I would like to know where they lived, who their ISP was and what they paid for them.


I had 3 Mbps to my home in 1993 at $70 per month with a minimum two year contract. (No, I'm not going to tell you where I lived.) Sadly, I'm only up to 20 Mbps today.


RE: s'fine and all...
By dark matter on 3/10/2010 9:53:59 AM , Rating: 4
If your going to lie, at least TRY and make it believable.

I would like to know what you were doing with your 3Mb connection back in 1993 considering that was the year the FIRST graphical browser was developed and considering the ARPANET backbone maxed out at 45Mbs!!

Of course you may have been a VERY important employee of NSF to be getting a 3Mb connection to your home regardless you wouldn't be able to do much with it as your connection would top every other connection (apart from the backbone itself).

(do yourself a favour have a read of this http://www.governingwithcode.org/journal_articles/... (Yes its totally revelant to this arcitle as well! :)


RE: s'fine and all...
By OUits on 3/9/2010 2:27:51 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty sure the 1.5 figure is what the FCC defined "broadband" to be in the Telecom Act of '96. So I think using that figure here in relation to 1995 is appropriate.


RE: s'fine and all...
By clovell on 3/9/2010 1:49:50 PM , Rating: 3
This is an impressive advance in technology. If you want to b!tch about Comcast, AT&T, or Verizon or whoever your local broadband provider is, go find an article about them & comment.

Give Cisco some credit, FFS, and quit being such a greifer.


RE: s'fine and all...
By amanojaku on 3/9/2010 2:30:23 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
This is an impressive advance in technology.
No, it's not.

The Cisco CRS-3 provides 332Tbits using 72 routers (one per rack) and 8 fabric shelves (one per rack). That's 4.48Tbits per router rack.

The Juniper TX Matrix with T1600 routers provides only 25.6Tbits, but does so with 16 routers (2 per rack) and three fabric routers (one per rack). That's 3.2Tbits per router rack, and this is three years old.

The fact that the TX Matrix "only" does 25.6Tbits is trivial; few datacenters push 100Tbits, let alone 332Tbits. All 72 router nodes would need to be in the same location, meaning building or campus. Can you point out a building or campus with a core greater than 1.2Tbit (3x40Gbit)? Sure they exist, but they're pretty rare, even for ISPs and telcos. Cisco is selling this as an in-place upgrade for the CRS-1. There's more profit in selling a rehashed version of something old for the same, or greater, price than there is in creating something entirely new.


RE: s'fine and all...
By clovell on 3/9/2010 3:49:08 PM , Rating: 2
The 3-fold increase in raw capacity along with the relative >2-fold advantage in power efficiency isn't anything to sneeze at - and it certainly isn't a reason to start griping about broadband providers.

It's probably more than a lot of folks need, but I expect that the high-level IT professionals who will be purchasing this type of behemoth will do a thorough cost analysis.


RE: s'fine and all...
By theendofallsongs on 3/9/2010 8:33:41 PM , Rating: 2
Right. I've worked with the CRS-1 units and when we purchased them, they were the best in the business. Excited to see what kind of pricing we might be able to get on these.


RE: s'fine and all...
By Hieyeck on 3/9/2010 3:57:07 PM , Rating: 1
You would fit in great at a North American ISP. Just bitch about how the consumer is using too much bandwidth, instead of meeting demand. Just because we don't need it, doesn't mean we won't EVER need it. Future-proofing, if you've ever heard of it. The ISPs failed and now we're paying the price.

Basically, it allows for technology to be 'financed'. Say a datacentre will reach that requirement in 10 years, and the cost of the machine is $10 million. Cisco stands to make more money by charging $1.1 mil per year (for 10 years = $11 mil) and satisfying stockholders by gauranteeing(sp?) cashflow for 10 years. The datacentre SAVES money by instead of tacking on $1mil machines for 10 years, they do it in one chunk, saving man hours, downtime, integration costs, reducing capital costs and allowing the datacentre to invest that 8.9 million saved that year in other sectors (or even in stocks), etc. etc. They'll have that extra capacity they needed 10 years down the road ahead of time, which is even better if the rate of change suddenly speeds up.

Obviously, the math is all buggered up, but I'm just using nice even numbers to make the concept easier to understand. Financing something that large will never reach 10% interest, reality is more like 1%, and if the datacentre then invested that 8.99 mil in a measly 2% return, they make money overall.


RE: s'fine and all...
By amanojaku on 3/9/2010 5:19:18 PM , Rating: 2
In case it wasn't clear I pointed out that today's datacenter capacity needs are still way behind what was available a few years ago. A company's datacenter of 1,000 servers with 1Gbit NICs pushes a max of 1Tbit. Most datacenters are smaller than that, and those that have 1,000 or more are typically virtualized. Even if they aren't, the NIC utilization is 20% or less per OS, up to 200Gbit per 1,000 OSes. 25Tbit can handle 125K servers at that rate.

Let's look at consumer access. Youtube, Hulu, etc... use bandwidth, but look at your connection. 10Mbit down. 25Tbit handles 2.5M users at 10Mbit. Is 10Mbit too slow for you? Not really. But, hey, I'm generous. I'll give you 50Mbit. That's 500K users. There aren't many providers (dsl, cable, or fibre) who can claim that many users in one facility.

The fact that ISPs are "constrained" on bandwidth has nothing to due with the extreme bandwidth available in these units, either. ISPs just aren't seeing the profits they used to, and so they're passing the costs on to you. You don't want to pay, so you don't get the bandwidth.

And for the record, I worked at several ISPs and currently evaluate ISPs and Fortune 100 datacenters for infrastructure viability. I fit in great because I don't spend all of my budget on things I don't need so that I have the money to spend it on the things I do need.


RE: s'fine and all...
By Lord 666 on 3/9/2010 5:41:41 PM , Rating: 2
Your my hero


RE: s'fine and all...
By Hieyeck on 3/11/2010 9:33:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I worked at several ISPs and currently evaluate ISPs and Fortune 100 datacenters for infrastructure viability.

No wonder you actually believe the bull they're feeding you. If you think ISPs aren't practically pure profit, you're sadly mistaken. Bandwidth is DIRT cheap. I can buy bandwidth for my hosted box at $5 for an additional 2TB. FIVE DOLLARS for 2TB AT PROFIT IN TORONTO (if you don't know the price of a Canadian pipe is twice as much compared to America - Dallas, Chicago, NY, DC, etc.). Most consumer connections can't even consume that much in a month if they were left on full speed for 24/7. Bandwidth is CHEAP. Admittedly, it's the last mile infra and support you need to pay for, but there's no way existing infrastructure (coax, copper, etc) costs alot to maintain, and with 1 hour wait times, I seriously doubt my share of support is worth the remaining $60/month (consumer average. I pay $100/month). NOT INCLUDING the 'excessive usage' fees from blowing your cap out of the water. Let's summarize, Europe and SEAsia pay half of what we do for 100mbit internet with NO caps. We pay $60 a month for 10/1 that's capped at 75~ gigs AND THEN $1 PER gig after that (despite the fact ISPs pay THEIR ISPs $5 for 2TB)... of course we dont' want to pay this.

You're hardly being generous. 10mbit IS too slow for me. I DO HAVE 50mbit and I'm straining the connection. That's just down. I WRECK my 2mbit up. I may be a small portion of users, but I AM young and not so young that I won't be in the majority of paying customers in 10 years. This means I'm part of the future, the people ISPs need to future-proof against is MY generation, not YOUR e-mail checking, recipie-browsing generation. Consumers CAN'T use 332tbits because NA ISPs won't LET them. Let's take a peek at HK as an example. 100mbits to 3 million apartments IS 300Tbits. That's just ONE SMALL SEAsian city, with CURRENT technology, households ALONE. No datacentres, company lines, and so forth. I'm not sure, but you may have missed the part I said about FUTURE-PROOFING.

But you're right, let's forget about future-proofing, let's worry about the now, because clearly that's what your kind care about. Your kind put 600 users on a cable node, which are rated at a recommended 100 users per, 150 max, 200 if you're cheap and push it (because we all know engineers like to be on the safe side). THREE to FOUR times over DOCSIS limits. This is why cable sucks in America (it's not so bad up here in Canuckistan, population density isn't quite what it is in America).

And all this is just about consumer usage, don't even get me started on future-proofing for corporate and backbone providers for WAN usage. I haven't even mentioned future-proofing LANs.

Infrastructure viability for Fortune 100 companies? You mean those lawyers and number crunchers that move word documents and excel spreadsheets around? Their biggest use of bandwidth are those silly 320x200 low-def viral videos floating around the office. You're a joke is what you are.


RE: s'fine and all...
By Reclaimer77 on 3/9/2010 2:02:41 PM , Rating: 2
Cisco can't force your ISP to upgrade. I'm kind of confused as to what you are saying here...


Out of curiousity
By DukeN on 3/9/2010 12:58:16 PM , Rating: 2
What would one of these cost (very approximate ballpark?)




RE: Out of curiousity
By AnotherGuy on 3/9/2010 1:05:14 PM , Rating: 2
Id guess a few hundred millions based on the project being $1.6B.... but i wouldnt know.


RE: Out of curiousity
By RabidDog on 3/9/2010 1:05:32 PM , Rating: 5
One MILLION Dollars!
[pinky to corner of mouth]


RE: Out of curiousity
By OUits on 3/9/2010 2:47:23 PM , Rating: 2
Business Week says it starts at $90,000. Seems low.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-09/cisco-...


RE: Out of curiousity
By SandmanWN on 3/9/2010 3:03:57 PM , Rating: 5
Knowing the router business that is probably for the chassis, switch fabric, and a power supply base unit.

All router cards sold separately ranging from 50,000 to 500,000 a piece. ;)


In Other News...
By chagrinnin on 3/9/2010 1:01:08 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Cisco announced that one of its customers, AT&T has become the first to trial CRS-3 powered internet in the U.S.


Newscaster: "AT&T has received three large boxes labeled "Sisco SRC-3" from Newegg and is anxiously looking forward to setting up their new router. More on this story at ten..."




RE: In Other News...
By Ratinator on 3/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: In Other News...
By CosmoJoe on 3/9/2010 1:14:24 PM , Rating: 1
Contained on the installation CD was a large PDF document of nothing but blank pages.


RE: In Other News...
By ilostmypen on 3/9/2010 1:34:59 PM , Rating: 1
*slow clap*


RE: In Other News...
By gmyx on 3/9/2010 1:56:13 PM , Rating: 2
Took me a minute to notice what you did... Good one.


RE: In Other News...
By driver01z on 3/9/2010 4:32:02 PM , Rating: 2
Could someone explain...
I see "Sisco SRC-3" but I don't see what that means...
Yes I realize I am full of fail.


RE: In Other News...
By driver01z on 3/9/2010 4:33:42 PM , Rating: 2
Cool but can it ....
By ShadyKiller on 3/9/2010 1:49:14 PM , Rating: 1
run CRYSIS MP ???




RE: Cool but can it ....
By HostileEffect on 3/9/2010 1:53:22 PM , Rating: 1
Crysis had awesome multiplayer, except the cheaters ruined it. Crysis never required beast internet, I have rural DSL and managed 50Ping. :)


RE: Cool but can it ....
By marsbound2024 on 3/9/2010 1:54:05 PM , Rating: 5
die


RE: Cool but can it ....
By ShadyKiller on 3/9/2010 2:11:13 PM , Rating: 1
I dont think you got the sarcasm <:P>


Disclosure
By droplets on 3/10/2010 3:59:46 PM , Rating: 3
I love their depiction of the 3D OS, or whatever you want to call it. It's about as impressive as the cheesy version in the 80's movie Disclosure.
This faux-holy-grail of GUI is a ways off if never coming to fruition. It reminds me of an Onion article which applauds a fictional new WOW type game that lets you control the avatar controlling your avatar. We are all already sitting in front of a GUI right now. Why will we ever need to render ourselves in 3D-redundancy?




"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki