Talk:Ethernet physical layer

Does this page just duplicate other pages?

There's already a gigabit Ethernet page giving details of gigabit Ethernet physical layers, and the Fast Ethernet page should probably swallow the pages for the individual 100Mbit/second standards; this page doesn't even mention 10 gigabit Ethernet. Guy Harris 17:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably it is, though User:Oakad clearly did a nice job with it. It would probably be better to merge the respective wording and tables onto the Fast Ethernet and gigabit Ethernet and the not-yet existant early/ancient/original/10mbs ethernet pages. -- KelleyCook 18:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've merged stuff from here into Fast Ethernet, and turned the "Fast Ethernet" section of this page into a summary that points to the Fast Ethernet page. I'll look at doing the same with the Gigabit Ethernet stuff.

The Varieties of Ethernet page also has a summary of various Ethernet physical layers; should the two pages be merged? Guy Harris 21:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I've done that merge. Guy Harris 08:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Does this overlap with Ethernet over twisted pair. --Boscobiscotti 04:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC) I also added a link to [[autonegotiation]--Boscobiscotti 05:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is a fair amount of overlap between Ethernet articles but it is managable. Feel free to suggest any organizational improvements. Ethernet physical layer#Twisted-pair cable is a WP:SUMMARY of Ethernet over twisted pair. ~Kvng (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Informal tone

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The minimum cable length section has stuff like "This is normally 10-100 Mb stuff" and "So here's where it gets interesting". Doesn't sound like something I'd read in an encyclopedia.

Tagging for informal tone. 59.154.26.124 23:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

10x steps between revisions

I think this article would be the right place to answer an old question of mine: what motivates the exponential speed increase of 10x between each revision? Why can't we have 25 Mbps or 450 Mbps Ethernet? Exxos77 18:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Economics and a pleasing sense of symmetry, I guess. For installed base, there's not much point in junking all your installed equipment for a 2.5x speedup. Generally speaking, the IEEE Task Forces have been given the job of creating the next Ethernet standard at 10x the speed but only 3x the cost. Having said that, IEEE are currently working on a 40Gbps Ethernet standard, so there goes the progression. It's not really encyclopaedic data, though, I think. Gareth8118 (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ethernet speed improvements have been exponential similar to Moore's law (see Edholm's law) so the multiplier is the same if the standard is updated at regular interval. ~Kvng (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

No 400GBASE-ZR 16QAM variant approved?

According to https://www.ieee802.org/3/cw/, "The work of the IEEE P802.3cw 400 Gb/s over DWDM Systems Task Force concluded with the withdrawal of IEEE P802.3cw PAR on 22 May 2024." Apparently, this Task Force didn't make sufficient progress over several years, and approval to continue working was withdrawn? I'm not sure I fully understand yet, but I am definitely unable to find a completed specification from the TF that defines 400GBASE-ZR. Also an issue at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terabit_Ethernet#802.3cw_project Rdviii (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Neeever mind. Looks like it is approved as P802.3cw/D3.0, Dec 2023 - IEEE Draft Standard for Ethernet Amendment: Physical Layers and Management Parameters for 400 Gb/s Operation over DWDM (dense wavelength division multiplexing) systems, which is not yet freely available and isn't indexed in some indices; I can't even access it through my university, though it apparently exists. Rdviii (talk) 06:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the bombarding, but looks like I still misunderstood. In IEEE Xplore (the IEEE's digital library), it is still listed as "Active - Draft", not "Approved". This makes the closing of the Task Force even more confusing; perhaps it was approved in early 2024 and the TF then shut down, but the final version not yet published? That doesn't make sense. So, I remain confused, and continue to look for updates on mailing lists and the like. Rdviii (talk) 07:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

https://www.ieee802.org/3/dj/public/24_03/motions_3cwdj_2403.pdf says the PAR (Project Authorization Request) was withdrawn by unanimous consent on 13 March 2024. This was foreshadowed a month earlier in an email from John d' Ambrosia, chair of the TF. Rdviii (talk) 07:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)