Multimode?? No.
Singlemode LR/ZR/ER XFPs - Ed -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Jones <[email protected]> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 09:09:35 To: [email protected]<[email protected]>; Lee Starnes<[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]<[email protected]>; cisco-nsp<[email protected]> Subject: RE: [c-nsp] SPA-1X10GE-WL-V2 vs SPA-1X10GE-L-V2 Whilst we are talking about SPA-110GE cards, has anyone got these to work with a multimode sr xfp? Andrew Jones -----Original Message----- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Edward Salonia Sent: Friday, 26 April 2013 1:25 AM To: Lee Starnes Cc: [email protected]; cisco-nsp Subject: Re: [c-nsp] SPA-1X10GE-WL-V2 vs SPA-1X10GE-L-V2 Sure. Future-proofing, when capable, is a good idea. -----Original Message----- From: Lee Starnes <[email protected]> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 22:53:03 To: <[email protected]> Cc: cisco-nsp<[email protected]>; [email protected]<[email protected]> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] SPA-1X10GE-WL-V2 vs SPA-1X10GE-L-V2 Hi Ed, So there should be no issue if they are used for what we do other than they cost more? We may have some SONET applications in the near future, so if I wanted to standardize on one card, this should work both ways? This was my understanding based on what I read, but I don't want to assume that things not clearly stated were there. Our main use being etherchannel stuff. -Lee On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Edward Salonia <[email protected]> wrote: > WL does LANPHY, WANPHY, and SONET/SDH. > L does only LANPHY > > If you are just using this for 10gige LAN interconnect, use the L. If you > need WAN/SONET support, get the WL. > > - Ed > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee Starnes <[email protected]> > Sender: "cisco-nsp" <[email protected]>Date: Wed, 24 Apr > 2013 16:12:26 > To: [email protected]<[email protected]> > Subject: [c-nsp] SPA-1X10GE-WL-V2 vs SPA-1X10GE-L-V2 > > Hello, > > I was wondering if anyone here has used the SPA-1X10GE-WL-V2 and if so how > it differs with the non "W" version with relation to Ethernet and > EtherBundles. > > We currently use the non "W" versions for our ethernet uplinks to backbone > connections as well as between our switches and routers. In some cases, we > do EtherBundles for 20 or 30G links. I was wondering if the "W" version > would have any issues with this or if it's only difference is the ability > to do POS. > > -Lee > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
