Hi Nick. >> 1) Use of SFP+ instead of XFP-optics (no 40km optics at FCS, "never" >> anything beyond 40km) > > It's a LAN switch. If you want a metro switch, get something with deeper > buffers.
I'm speaking of ME-36/3800X, not the 3560G. And those babies are indeed metro switches with large buffers :-) > And you don't really want to run a 40km link on SFP+ either. Exactly, that's why I would like to have XFP-optics (read: something else than SFP+). >> 2) Double depth of the switch (compared to ME3400E, Catalyst 35xx) > > minor pain. Not going to get upset about it, as the switches still fit into > an 800x600 cabinet. > >> 3) Power connectors in the back, network on the front (I really like >> the ME3400E design) > > Again, don't care where these are, but I'm pleased that Cisco have finally > built a general purpose access switch with onboard dual PSU. Personally, I > found RPSs to be insufferable. It's not uncommon with space constrained environments where the cabinets are placed against a wall and houses PDH/SDH/SONET equipment today (~30 cm depth). In those cases you need a shallow switch servicable from one side. BTW this is one of the selling points of the ME-3400E (and ME3400): Service-Provider-Friendly Hardware Because Carrier Ethernet access switches are typically deployed in small spaces in office buildings or apartments, the Cisco ME 3400E Series offers a compact form factor and flexible mounting options. In addition, the Cisco ME 3400E Series has all front-accessed connectors to simplify field installation and troubleshooting. IMHO this was a great initiative from Cisco, and I hoped they would continue the effort with the newer ME-switches. But sadly not. -- Pelle RFC1925, truth 11: Every old idea will be proposed again with a different name and a different presentation, regardless of whether it works. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
