On 2/1/2014 10:40 PM, Jima wrote:
+1. Cisco calls them Twinax, HP calls them DACs. I don't know what
anyone else calls them as it hasn't come up in conversation for me.
I thought Twinax was an IBMish MILSPEC term.
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
On 2/2/14, 7:30 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 2/1/2014 10:40 PM, Jima wrote:
+1. Cisco calls them Twinax, HP calls them DACs. I don't know what
anyone else calls them as it hasn't come up in conversation for me.
I thought Twinax was an IBMish MILSPEC term.
twinax could refer to a specific
- Original Message -
From: joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com
I thought Twinax was an IBMish MILSPEC term.
twinax could refer to a specific technology or to the presence of dual
inner conductors e.g. in contrast to coax or triax.
Rather specifically, Twinax refers to cable with 2
These cables are most commonly known as Direct Attach Copper SFP+
On Sunday, February 2, 2014, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com javascript:;
I thought Twinax was an IBMish MILSPEC term.
twinax could refer to a
On 2/2/2014 4:03 PM, Bryan Tong wrote:
These cables are most commonly known as Direct Attach Copper SFP+
The big issue appears to be that these are not always consistently
functional crossing vendor lines (sometimes product lines within the
same vendor). There does not appear to be any
.
Netapp's lower end gear doesn't support active twinax.
From: Jeff Kell [jeff-k...@utc.edu]
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2014 3:15 PM
To: Bryan Tong; Jay Ashworth
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Twinax trivia check (was Re: Is there such a thing as a 10GBase-T
SFP
Ashworth
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Twinax trivia check (was Re: Is there such a thing as a
10GBase-T SFP+ transciever)
On 2/2/2014 4:03 PM, Bryan Tong wrote:
These cables are most commonly known as Direct Attach Copper SFP+
The big issue appears to be that these are not always consistently
That was the reason for the push to the 10x10 MSA by people like Google
and other providers who did not want to use MM bundles and didn't want to
deal with the expense and power consumption of 100GBase-LR4. LR10
although hasn't really seen much adoption by the vendors, only compatible
optics from
On Feb 1, 2014, at 4:05 PM, Phil Bedard bedard.p...@gmail.com wrote:
As for 10GBase-T in a transceiver, I haven't seen that on anyone's
roadmap. It will probably come eventually but not for awhile.
It must exist, as there is this:
Pluggable SFP+ transceiver. There are plenty of fixed config 10GBase-T
devices out there. Power/space in a SFP+ package just isn't there yet.
Phil
On 2/1/14, 4:18 PM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
On Feb 1, 2014, at 4:05 PM, Phil Bedard bedard.p...@gmail.com wrote:
As for
On 2/1/14, 1:18 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Feb 1, 2014, at 4:05 PM, Phil Bedard bedard.p...@gmail.com wrote:
As for 10GBase-T in a transceiver, I haven't seen that on anyone's
roadmap. It will probably come eventually but not for awhile.
It must exist, as there is this:
Nah that's a
IIRC, it takes about 13W to maintain a 10GBASET connection. That's a lot of
power to drain from a tiny board that wasn't designed to supply such loads.
~tom
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 1:32:58 PM, Phil Bedard bedard.p...@gmail.com
wrote:
Pluggable SFP+ transceiver. There are plenty of fixed
+1. Cisco calls them Twinax, HP calls them DACs. I don't know what
anyone else calls them as it hasn't come up in conversation for me.
Cisco appears to offer them in 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, and 5 meter passive,
as well as 7 and 10 meter active. HP has them in 1, 3, 7, 10, and 15
meter; no
On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 04:21:20AM +, Thomas Maufer wrote:
IIRC, it takes about 13W to maintain a 10GBASET connection. That's a lot of
power to drain from a tiny board that wasn't designed to supply such loads.
~tom
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 1:32:58 PM, Phil Bedard
What I want to see is reasonably priced 40G single mode transceivers.
I have no idea why 40G and now 100G wasn't rolled out with single mode as the
preference. The argument that there's a large multimode install base doesn't
hold water.
For one thing, you're using enormous amounts of MM fiber
I would like to know if anyone has seen one of these? If so where? Also if
they don't exist why? It would seem to me that it would make it a lot
easier to play mix and match with fiber in the DC if they did. Would be so
hard to make the 1G SFPs faster (trying to be funny here not arrogant).
On 1/30/14, 5:26 PM, james jones wrote:
I would like to know if anyone has seen one of these? If so where? Also if
they don't exist why? It would seem to me that it would make it a lot
easier to play mix and match with fiber in the DC if they did. Would be so
hard to make the 1G SFPs faster
You may wish to consider twinax for short distance 10G over copper with
SFP+ at both ends
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinaxial_cabling#SFP.2B_Direct-Attach_Copper_.2810GSFP.2BCu.29
Typically marketed as direct-attach (you can't remove the cables from
the transceivers, it's all integrated)
18 matches
Mail list logo
