* Readers weigh in on debate over future-proofing
In a newsletter last month I asked whether Gigabit Ethernet to the desktop is an expense to be avoided. I’d like to share some of the responses.
What’s encouraging – especially for someone who writes a newsletter called “High Speed LANs” – is that the responses indicated that plentiful bandwidth continues to be a requirement among readers.
One reader summed up his argument very succinctly: “You can never have too much bandwidth. Video will just use it all up.”
Others qualified their answers a little more. Writes one:
“The truth is that I agree that we don’t need Gigabit Ethernet to the desktop, except for some large AutoCAD transfers now and then. Yes, we could plan for the future if it wasn’t that expensive (HP ProCurve or 3Com gear), but our company standard is Cisco and it would be too expensive. Where do I see higher speed needs:
– Server-to-server connectivity for LAN-based backup.
– Separate Ethernet network for storage based on iSCSI.
– Separate Ethernet network for video surveillance using Ethernet cameras.
“And of course, I would like to have 802.11n today, but that’s the subject of the wireless networks newsletter.”
Yes, it is, but of course that’s part of the LAN, too, so I don’t mind taking on that subject now and then.
Another reader takes a historical view – and puts the current debate about bandwidth into perspective:
“I have heard the same ‘we don’t need the speed’ argument so many, many times over the last 36 years. I even heard it said about 1200-baud MODEMs when 300 baud (and 110-baud acoustic couplers) were prevalent. ‘No one can type that fast, anyway!’
“And a year or two ago, one of the largest energy companies was agonizing over the need for more than 10 Meg to the desktop. ‘If you analyze true bandwidth needs, whatever that means, you can get a lot done over a half-duplex 10-Meg link’ – if you wait long enough.
“And, of course, that is the question, how long should users wait for data? It wasn’t long ago (OK, 20 years) that mainframe folks were saying that a 5-second wait for a screen refresh was adequate. Users answered that question pretty clearly.
“And the argument for staying with half-duplex 10 Meg was just as ridiculous. To keep themselves from being wrong, those energy folks just made sure no one was able to deploy modern apps that required a higher transmission speed. They argued, ‘Look how much it is going to cost to replace all of the switches in the company!’ They argued the same about NAC, controlling wireless access points, etc.
“And that is the best argument for the higher speeds today – the higher speeds come on switches that are just a whole lot better than the older, slower models, especially NAC and management. Deploying a Cisco 3750, for example, is a pleasurable breeze, and its management and security features greatly reduce the total cost of ownership over older switches.”
More responses in the next newsletter.
