# UAVCAN v1.x and CAN XL

**URL:** <https://forum.opencyphal.org/t/uavcan-v1-x-and-can-xl/950>\
**Category:** Development & Maintenance\
**Created:** [October 2, 2020, 6:15pm UTC](https://forum.opencyphal.org/t/uavcan-v1-x-and-can-xl/950 "2020-10-02T18:15:03Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pavel.kirienko](https://forum.opencyphal.org/user_avatar/forum.opencyphal.org/pavel.kirienko/32/9_2.png) [@pavel.kirienko](https://forum.opencyphal.org/u/pavel.kirienko)\
**Post date:** [October 4, 2020, 4:47am UTC](https://forum.opencyphal.org/t/uavcan-v1-x-and-can-xl/950/3 "2020-10-04T04:47:24Z")

</div>

> [@scottdixon](#):
>
> I’m dubious that this technology will gain much adoption where ethernet can be deployed instead.

I mostly agree. There could be some niche though because where CAN is strong is 1. low cost and 2. simplified analysis of real-time networks (CAN ID arbitration vs. packet switching). But then again, the new low-cost single-pair 10 Mbps [Ethernet 802.3cg](https://forum.opencyphal.org/t/alternative-transport-protocols-in-uavcan/324/10) that happens to support time-deterministic bus topologies might make CAN XL less appealing in some new designs.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.opencyphal.org/t/uavcan-v1-x-and-can-xl/950)._