Moon_Lee
New ContributorJoined 5 years ago
User Profile
New ContributorUser Widgets
Contributions
Re: Why don't support 100% traffic performance with N3000 PAC Board?
@HRZ Open source adoption has been made common place in national R&Ds, at least here in Korea. I would say, hardening security up to the required level can be agnostic to whether codes are open or closed. Moreover, building everything from a green grass is neither possible nor desirable for modern telco applications these days. Even most of Gov. R&D stakeholders here are well aware of the paradigmatic shift towards Open Networking & Computing. (Well, the only exception would still be the Defense sector though.) No problem at all in our leveraging Intel N3000 PAC platform, as long as Intel stay being a trusted supplier. So, I am still wondering how Intel would want to react to this non-carrier-grade stigma..?4KViews0likes0CommentsRe: Why don't support 100% traffic performance with N3000 PAC Board?
Hi JW. Working with SYeon, I will have to bring this issue (of not meeting the due wire speed with minimum Ethernet IFGs) to the attention of our project community including all 3 Korean mobile operators and major network vendors. Note that this is one of biggest national R&D projects where a total of 9 Intel N3000 PACs are used to feature 'URLLC (Ultra Resilient and Low Latency Communication)' for 5G MEC (Mobile Edge Computing) use cases. Hence 'non-wire rate' PACs would hardly be made acceptable, considering the stringency of the project. Can't we expect Intel to deliver the advertised (100% wire speed) feature e.g. by releasing a quick update??4KViews0likes2Comments