What’s more, isn't the implementation of One-Pair-EtherNet (OPEN) basically a proprietary point-to-point physical layer, with a big 'ol bloated Ethernet protocol stack on top of it? There are a number of other efficient, vehicle–oriented P2P communication interfaces available, with HIGHER bandwidth, requiring much less overhead than is necessary to support “Ethernet.” I don’t think it will be practical to try connecting everything in a car together by “OPEN Ethernet” to the exclusion of such other reliable and inexpensive communications interfaces and proprietary protocols.
There’s a lot of marketing hype over “ethernet in vehicles,” I just hope the vehicle OEMs don’t get sucked into it. Although acceptance may line the pockets of the OPEN Ethernet SIG, it doesn’t buy anybody else anything not already available more cheaply and efficiently in other ways.
Sorry for the rant, at least in this article I didn't see anything about trying to use RJ-45 connectors, too. Where, in a vehicle, would an RJ-45 ever be suitable as a reliable, long term interconnect?!? lol.
I’ve been seeing more and more stuff about this lately. Just to put it out there- I think ethernet in the car is mostly a bad idea. The exception, where Ethernet in a vehicle might make sense, is as a communications interface to an on-vehicle diagnostic or programming gateway. This could help avoid needing a myriad of different service tools and special hardware interfaces to talk to various cars, or to the various systems on a single car.
Yes, Unshielded Twisted Pair is fairly cheap, but the added MIPS and software required to support Ethernet protocol isn't going to come for free in auto silicon anytime soon. And BTW, OPEN isn't the only thing that can run on UTP or even other lower cost wiring options.
Sure, everybody thinks Ethernet is great because of its ubiquity in home and business networks, but vehicles have very different requirements and needs than those applications. Sure, vehicles are getting a lot of technology, but they're still not a home office or media center, where a high level of interchangeability is required, and everything probably needs to talk to everything else.
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.