Hi Andrew, We have not tried any multimode xfp's. While the documentation shows a table with only single mode optics, at the end of the document, it lists an XFP-10G-MM-SR in the ordering info table.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Andrew Jones <[email protected] > wrote: > 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/
