Hi CASPERites,
I believe that 40 Gbps Ethernet interoperates rather transparently with 10
Gbps. Because the 40 Gbps is arranged as four x 10 G lanes, so its possibly
to break a 40 QSFP port into four 10 SFP+ with a suitable breakout cable. Or
with proper packet addressing via a network
Hi Mitch,
Your answer helps a lot, thanks! I think the existence of the old 100 standard
explains conflicting information found on google search.
To constrain the scenario a bit: we don’t want to use a deprecated standard.
And though it was buried, I did specify that the 100 G standard we
Hi Jonathon,
I probably will not be answering your question completely. But perhaps just a
bit of input for some further searching?
My understanding is that the first generation 100G PHY standard was IEEE
802.3ba-2010 and that used 10 lanes at 10G line rates. However, I believe the
only
Hi Giovanni,
You can use the four SFP28 cages that are on the ZCU216 to implement
100G-CUAI4. This does require a 4x25 to 100G breakout cable.
It is true that the four transceivers are split 2-2 over two different MGT
sites. However, after a good amount of effort and some additional HDL this
I am trying the 100G tutorial on a ZCU216. The board has 4x 28G SFP28
cages, which are sited in two different transceiver blocks. So I suspect
the core cannot be used, even using a breakout cable.
It should be possible to us the 100G core on a FMC daughterboard, but I
don't know if there s a
Jono,
The secret is that none of this autonegotiates. You have to set the
link speed and the link width explicitly on the switch. The switch you
own, a N8550-32C, with 100 gig ports, was able to talk to a Google
Transfer Device with a 40 gig port, after explicitly setting the speed
down on the
>
>
> I would imagine (though no claims that my imagination aligns with reality)
> that any switch with QSFP28 ports which advertise 4x25G breakout mode will
> also support 4x10G. The former might be more obviously advertised.
>
>
I think this is correct, the only caveat I'd add is for some
Hi Jack,
Thanks for weighing in. Actually your answer doesn’t read as the same one that
Mitch gave. Further clarification:
> On Nov 30, 2022, at 3:08 PM, Jack Hickish wrote:
>
> Yes, I think that's probably right. There are old standards which probably
> allow you to passively convert a
On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 at 17:18, 'Jonathan Weintroub' via
casper@lists.berkeley.edu wrote:
> Hi Mitch,
>
> Your answer helps a lot, thanks! I think the existence of the old 100
> standard explains conflicting information found on google search.
>
> To constrain the scenario a bit: we don’t want
9 matches
Mail list logo
