Thing is, its not a mini gbic... PC example: Mini PCI express exposes all the same pins and bus as a PCI express slot, just in a smaller format.
Or: Micro sdhc is pin compatible with a sdhc card, same electrical interface, just smaller. Mini gbic is not a pin compatible thing with a gbic, eg, you can't install a sfp in a gbic slot with a passive pin adapter sleeve. On Feb 5, 2016 7:40 PM, "Ken Hohhof" <[email protected]> wrote: > They should just call it an SFP like everybody else, but it’s not wrong to > call it a mini GBIC. Maybe annoying, but certainly not the most annoying > thing you are likely to encounter on any given day. Maybe on a par with > “ATM Machine” or “Mole Sauce”. > > *From:* George Skorup <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, February 05, 2016 7:38 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 100Gbps > > Every Cisco guy I talk to says Mini GBIC, not SFP. That's the way they're > taught. It's brainwashing. > > I was going to go for CCNA and maybe CCNP, but 1) I have too much shit to > do, and 2) fuck Cisco. > > On 2/5/2016 7:28 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote: > > This. > > Cisco has caused a lot of very bad habits and problems in the networking > industry, this is just one of many. > > Their dislike of WISPs was the final straw for me though. > On Feb 5, 2016 7:23 PM, "Eric Kuhnke" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The MSA group that created the standard for the SFP defined it as "small >> form factor pluggable". >> >> I've only ever seen Cisco proprietary things call it a mini gbic, which >> just causes confusion. >> On Feb 5, 2016 5:20 PM, "George Skorup" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> S(mall)FP = Mini GBIC = gigabit interface converter = generic term now. >>> Thank Cisco for that. >>> >>> On 2/5/2016 7:04 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote: >>> >>> There was no such thing as an sfp when the 3550-12 was created. Twelve >>> GBIC. >>> On Feb 5, 2016 12:42 PM, "Josh Reynolds" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Gbic or sfp? Two different things. >>>> On Feb 5, 2016 2:26 PM, "Eric Kuhnke" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Remember when a Cisco 3550-48 with EMI software was $3000... Now I >>>>> get them for free, the 3550-12 gbic version for $20. >>>>> On Feb 5, 2016 9:22 AM, "Travis Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I remember when we bought some of our first Intel 10/100 switches... >>>>>> they were $2,400 each and we bought three of them for our NOC backbone. >>>>>> >>>>>> Travis >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2/5/2016 9:55 AM, Nate Burke wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I have mixed feelings on it, I think that if you're pushing the >>>>>>> envelope, then you should pay for it. But as the market meets demand, >>>>>>> prices should come down. Remember back when 10/100 switches were $1000? >>>>>>> Now, you can get a 24 Port 1G switch with 10G uplinks for, what, $400? >>>>>>> In >>>>>>> another 10 years, 100G will probably be the same. Pickup a 24 Port 100G >>>>>>> switch with 1TB uplinks for $200. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Although at the same time, Throwing more Bandwidth at the problem >>>>>>> just makes for sloppier code. Average webpage loads are now, what >>>>>>> 5-6mb, >>>>>>> for really no more content. Things used to be efficient, as it was the >>>>>>> programs responsibility for performance, Now it's the clients >>>>>>> responsibility if things are slow (upgrade your PC, upgrade your >>>>>>> internet) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://xkcd.com/1605/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2/5/2016 10:34 AM, Adam Moffett wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You tell them and they'll tell you how your capital expenses don't >>>>>>>> matter. >>>>>>>> In 1995 they decided that internet should be free and they'll never >>>>>>>> stop believing it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2/5/2016 10:04 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I cringe when people portray multi gigabit bandwidth as costing >>>>>>>>> pennies, as if the only cost is the fiber. Yeah, until you have to >>>>>>>>> route >>>>>>>>> those packets, rather than just transporting a beam of light. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Faisal Imtiaz >>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 8:57 AM >>>>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 100Gbps >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's not un-common to do 100Gpbs as follows:- >>>>>>>>> Bonding 10x 10G circuits >>>>>>>>> Bonding a combination of 40G circuits. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> providing 100G switched transport is easy. >>>>>>>>> Having a router, to do 100G transport is not, >>>>>>>>> Expect to pay approx $100k for a router (loaded ready to go, on >>>>>>>>> the 2ndary markets) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Faisal Imtiaz >>>>>>>>> Snappy Internet & Telecom >>>>>>>>> 7266 SW 48 Street >>>>>>>>> Miami, FL 33155 >>>>>>>>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 <305%20663%205518%20x%20232> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> From: "Sterling Jacobson" <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 1:01:09 AM >>>>>>>>>> Subject: [AFMUG] 100Gbps >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So... Let's just say, for a minute, that I could sell Adobe a >>>>>>>>>> 100Gbps line. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What would that be priced at? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think I can do it technically with a pair of fiber I can get >>>>>>>>>> end to end. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Are their LD optics at 100Gbps yet? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Or are we still talking dense wave multiplexing? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >
