Disclaimer
The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
Liability Disclaimer
In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
Posting
Today, cabling plant expense, to upgrade to support gig, often is the most expensive component providing gig to the desktop.
In a similar situation, I have seen replacing switches with gig ports but not upgrading the cabling plant. The reasoning was, the gig capable switches don't carry that much of a price premium and if plant as a whole or some parts are upgraded, you'll be able to support gig. Parts of the cabling plant incapable of supporting gig were run at 100. Further considerations included switches being replaced for other reasons, new features (e.g. 802.1x), and their expected lifetimes.
Users often don't see a huge improvement when moved to gig except when using Windows XP accessing servers that are across LFNs. (NB: XP changes its default RWIN for 100 Mbps vs. gig.)
