Aquantia Announces Multi-Gig Ethernet Controllers, Coming Soon To ASUS Boards

[dibal]

You can convert SFP+ to regular Ethernet if needed (using a converter). Otherwise it's a better technology. Industrial grade routers prefer it actually.

SFP are not able to convert speed.

[shmerl]

Are there that many ISPs able to provide enough speed for this? I totally get this for server environment, but what's the use for desktop?
I'm still on 100Mb/s on home network, pondered switching to 1gbit, there's just not enough benefit for desktop.

Gigabit is fairly common, especially if you have a fiber optic ISP.

[shmerl]

SFP are not able to convert speed.

You mean conversion reduces it?

[milkylainen]

Umm. Cat5 was ratified in 1991. Cat 5e in 2001(?).
If you havn't upgraded your cat cabling since 1991 and want to run multigig my guess is that you're in for a whole lot of other surprises...

[dibal]

You mean conversion reduces it?

A "normal" 10GE SFP slot can not drive a 2.5 GE PHY, only the rates that are supported by the SPF slot.

[edwaleni]

With ISP's offering 1Gbps service, 1Gbps WiFi and OTA LTE reaching 1Gbps, it was somewhat anti-climactic that CAT5 networking standards were going to make a bump.

As for the use of SFP's, that is more of a commerical/datacenter approach. Not that there is anything wrong with it, but the per port costs exceed what most consumer/SMB gear is designed for. If I had an investment in CAT5/6 infrastructure, NBASE-T is a simple drop in replacement.

In a sort of chicken and egg arrangement, 100% of corporate desktops/laptops in the offices have 1GbE ports, but deploy 100Mbps ports for daily use. Aggregate that traffic using 1Gbps or 10GbE fiber to the head end and use 10GbE or 40GbE in their core.

If Cisco announced tomorrow they were dropping manufacture of 100Mbps ports in their Catalyst switches and replacing them with NBASE-T ports, I would surmise that 10/100 ports would start to decline in availability in corporate.

As for microSFP, you would probably see USB-C ports for networking before you would see fiber to the laptop.

[shmerl]

As for the use of SFP's, that is more of a commerical/datacenter approach. Not that there is anything wrong with it, but the per port costs exceed what most consumer/SMB gear is designed for

Not anymore from what I've heard. Prices on SFP have been gradually dropping in the recent years and continue doing so. Most just don't pay attention and it's also fairly uncommon in consumer grade hardware like routers. But other than that, it should be quite ready for adoption.

[NotMine999]

But isn't it more expensive?

EDIT:
Also, i dont' see laptops adopting SPF until it reaches mini/micro SPF spec...

Yes, it is more expensive. A SFP or SFP+ port is simply a square hole into which a transceiver is inserted. That transceiver can then provide copper (RJ-45) termination (typically a jack) or optical cable termination (fiber cable to plug(s)).

One of the issues I see with SFP and SFP+ is the fact that many vendors have developed SFP/SFP+ devices that look for specific types of SFP/SFP+ inserts. It's a form of "vendor lock-in" with the big enterprise hardware vendors being the more insidious users of that strategy. I know, I used to sell vendor hardware like that.

Since the "lock-in" concept is completely possible and even done, what is to stop a vendor from creating such "lock-in" with their add-on adapters or even motherboard-based hardware?

Answer: NOTHING to stop them from doing it.

Yes, some people buy 3rd party SFP/SFP+ transceivers that promise to be "vendor compatible", but then there is the risk of the vendor blacklisting that hardware or filing a legal suit against that 3rd party manufacturer.

Now, as the customer using 3rd party transceivers, what do you do if your stuff gets broke by "SFP/SFP+ DRM"? Your hardware vendor will not care, and might even terminate your support contract (and you might get a refund on the unused portion) or curtail giving you really good discounts. The 3rd party vendor that made the "vendor compatible" transceivers may or may not be able to help you; depends on if they have been sued in court.

That is why people that like hardwired environments, especially in home and small business, like to advocate for RJ-45 termination. I have yet to see a RJ-45 termination (jack) that locks a customer into a particular type of cable or plug. Yes, RJ-45 jacks can be terminated in ways that require non-standard RJ-45 plug wiring, but that issue is easy to overcome.

[NotMine999]

SFP are not able to convert speed.

As far as optical SFP/SFP+ transceivers, I agree with that statement since it reflects my own years of experience in the networking industry.

[shmerl]

Yes, some people buy 3rd party SFP/SFP+ transceivers that promise to be "vendor compatible", but then there is the risk of the vendor blacklisting that hardware or filing a legal suit against that 3rd party manufacturer.

That sounds like a standards issue, not a technical one. It would be quite dumb for that to become a blocker for using better technology. Doesn't anyone regulate standards for transceivers?