By bandwidth I mean range of light frequencies, not data throughput.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Hammett" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2016 12:19:46 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 40G It will depend on what they're using for gear and how it works. If the gear they use has coherent 40G or 100G, then 40G or 100G would use the same amount of bandwidth as 10G. The cost difference then largely is in the interface. If they're using gear that bonds 10G behind the scene, then it's cheaper interfaces, but more "cost" in the longhaul network. *shrugs* We'll see what the longhaul cost works out to, but in the meantime, I'd like to circle back to the switch itself. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sterling Jacobson" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2016 12:02:18 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 40G There are similar wave optics for 10G transceivers. So 10x 1G and 4x10G should work on the same system if the channels/colors are non-overlapping. From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2016 10:48 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 40G It would be getting waves on someone else's long haul network. 10G is a slam dunk over 10x 1G. Just checking out the scene for 40G. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sterling Jacobson" < [email protected] > To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2016 11:25:12 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 40G Depends on the distance, is this for WAN over a mile or two? QSFP+ modules and switches can be cheap, but I agree that long distance bonding of 4x10 SFP+ modules is cheaper. From: Af [ mailto:[email protected] ] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2016 10:22 AM To: [email protected] ; [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 40G i think is more cost effective to bond 4 10g? Sent from Outlook Mobile On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 9:17 AM -0800, "Josh Reynolds" < [email protected] > wrote: Which means that 40Gb WAN kin is now a steal :) On Feb 27, 2016 11:05 AM, "Gino Villarini" < [email protected] > wrote: <blockquote> 40g is for lan, wan has jumped to 100g Sent from Outlook Mobile On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 8:37 AM -0800, "Mike Hammett" < [email protected] > wrote: <blockquote> For those of you that have looked at 40G, what are your thoughts on the hardware available? I'm looking at primarily switching, though something that does VPLS, CE or similar features would be nice. Something with TRILL or a TRILL derivative would be nice too. I'm not talking Juniper MX scale. Light on power is one of the biggest priorities. It doesn't need to have a million ports, either. I do like the Nexus 9k that we've got, but in some areas, something with more functionality would be nice. I'm perfectly aware that what I want feature wise may not be available cost wise. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP </blockquote> </blockquote>
