| ▲ | bell-cot 9 hours ago |
| "Values up to 999G are supported, more than enough for interfaces today and the future." - Article "When we set the upper limit of PC-DOS at 640K, we thought nobody would ever need that much memory." - Bill Gates |
|
| ▲ | throw0101d 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > "Values up to 999G are supported, more than enough for interfaces today and the future." - Article Especially given that IEEE 802.3dj is working on 1.6T / 1600G, and is expected to publish the final spec in Summer/Autumn 2026: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terabit_Ethernet Currently these interfaces are only on switches, but there are already NICs at 800G (P1800GO, Thor Ultra, ConnectX-8/9), so if you LACP/LAGG two together your bond is at 1600G. |
| |
| ▲ | arsome 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you're moving those kind of speeds you're probably not doing packet filtering in software. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | bitfilped 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yes, we're already running 800G networks, so this phrasing seems really silly to me. |
|
| ▲ | WhyNotHugo 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Honestly, I'm really curious about this number. 10bits is 1024, so why 999G specifically? |
| |
| ▲ | abound 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Looking at the patch itself (linked in the article), the description has this: > We now support configuring bandwidth
up to ~1 Tbps (overflow in m2sm at m > 2^40). So I think that's it, 2^40 is ~1.099 trillion | |
| ▲ | elevation 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Looks like an arbitrary validation cap. By the time we're maxing out the 64-bit underlying representation we probably won't be using Ethernet any more. | | |
| ▲ | palmotea 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > By the time we're maxing out the 64-bit underlying representation we probably won't be using Ethernet any more. We will be using Ethernet until the heat death of the universe, if we survive that long. | |
| ▲ | bell-cot 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet#History (& following sections) Calling something "Ethernet" amounts to a promise that: - From far enough up the OSI sandwich*, you can pretend that it's a magically-faster version of old-fashioned Ethernet - It sticks to broadly accepted standards, so you won't get bitten by cutting-edge or proprietary surprises *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model |
|
|
