Re: [c-nsp] Upgrading to 40G
On 28/02/2014 18:49, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: Also I would say there is a fundamental lack of focus from operational people when it comes to progress in making the standards better and more efficient. Ops people are like any other recipient of developemnt, if you ask them, most of them just want the same, but more and cheaper. Doing leaps in efficiency isn't something they do, because that's not what they focus on, they focus on stability. My view is that the real problem is treating ops and development as two different things done by two separate groups of people - a pervasive attitude in the IT industry as a whole, that leads to un-operable crap being thrown over the wall from development, while at the same time development has no idea what ops needs. I think that siloing two groups of people with similar skillsets off from each other, making their communications go via some insipid bureaucratic process (ITIL! PRINCE2! Blah blah blah...), and then being surprised when each group doesn't understand the others needs is, frankly, idiotic. Ops and developement are the same thing, in my view. Ops must, surely, have a list of things they want to automate and/or architect out of existence, and you can't do truly useful development work without a visceral understanding of the operational needs of the network. That also happens to be a fundamentally more humanising and enjoyable way of working, in my experience. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Upgrading to 40G
On Saturday, March 01, 2014 02:39:07 PM Phil Mayers wrote: My view is that the real problem is treating ops and development as two different things done by two separate groups of people - a pervasive attitude in the IT industry as a whole, that leads to un-operable crap being thrown over the wall from development, while at the same time development has no idea what ops needs. And this creates a huge gap. Folk that translate RFC's into code may not necessarily understand how their choice of implementation affects network operation. Some vendors have BU's that monitor these lists, and when all the planets align, some actually go out and ask whether implementing a feature (a certain way) has operational value or not. This happens less often than it should, but it shows that there is a gap that needs filling.. Operators have, for years, tried to get their word into vendors. And the usual answer - Show me the money. One poster on a competing vendor's -nsp list suggested that requests for new features and capabilities should be posted via a web site, rather than trying to channel these through your AM, because more than likely, those go into /dev/null for the majority of operators. Are operators talking more to their vendors than they are the IETF? Yes. But some may argue that the IETF are mostly vendors, so... This is not an easy problem to solve - and if vendors continue to use the AM's-go-and-find-out-how-many-of-your- customers-have-requested-this-feature or how-large-is- your-customer's-deal approach, we'll never fix this problem. I appreciate that vendors have finite resources as to do other areas in life, but we also can't ignore the problem entirely. Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Upgrading to 40G
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014, Pshem Kowalczyk wrote: At this stage we wouldn't be able to justify the spend to go 100G on ASR9k. We're not talking about a single router or interface here, but quite a few. Besides - that doesn't really answer the question what to do with distances over the 10km. When 40GE and 100GE was standardized it was taken for granted that 40GE would be used to connect servers and perhaps a little inter-building backhaul, because of that only up to 10km was standardized. If you want longer reaches, you have to do 100GE. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Upgrading to 40G
On Friday, February 28, 2014 10:35:23 AM Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: When 40GE and 100GE was standardized it was taken for granted that 40GE would be used to connect servers and perhaps a little inter-building backhaul, because of that only up to 10km was standardized. While I can appreciate this, history has always proven that users will find a use for something for which it wasn't initially intended - y'know, like using a Cisco 2901 as a core router :-). Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Upgrading to 40G
While I can appreciate this, history has always proven that users will find a use for something for which it wasn't initially intended - y'know, like using a Cisco 2901 as a core router :-). Mark. Hahahaaha you just made my day :D adam -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mark Tinka Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 11:49 AM To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Cc: Peter Lothberg; Mikael Abrahamsson Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Upgrading to 40G On Friday, February 28, 2014 10:35:23 AM Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: When 40GE and 100GE was standardized it was taken for granted that 40GE would be used to connect servers and perhaps a little inter-building backhaul, because of that only up to 10km was standardized. While I can appreciate this, history has always proven that users will find a use for something for which it wasn't initially intended - y'know, like using a Cisco 2901 as a core router :-). Mark. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Upgrading to 40G
On Feb 28, 2014, at 6:17 AM, Vitkovský Adam adam.vitkov...@swan.sk wrote: While I can appreciate this, history has always proven that users will find a use for something for which it wasn't initially intended - y'know, like using a Cisco 2901 as a core router :-). Mark. Hahahaaha you just made my day :D You give people too much credit. I’ve heard stories of people trying to do it with a 2500-series much more recently than would make sense. I’ve also used a J-series or branch SRX in the core before, but then that’s the “core” layer of the so-called datacenter in my basement! -c ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Upgrading to 40G
Hi, On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:49:26PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote: While I can appreciate this, history has always proven that users will find a use for something for which it wasn't initially intended - y'know, like using a Cisco 2901 as a core router :-). old age day 2503 made a good core router, back in the day... (we had two! A 2503 and a 4500, with a E1 between them...) This newfangled 2900 stuff, nobody needs that much RAM in a router! /old age day gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de fax: +49-89-35655025g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de pgpnezytvB5ON.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Upgrading to 40G
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014, Mark Tinka wrote: While I can appreciate this, history has always proven that users will find a use for something for which it wasn't initially intended - y'know, like using a Cisco 2901 as a core router :-). I am all for abusing equipment in manners the vendor didn't think about, but it also helps to know what application the vendor thought the equipment would be used in, in order to understand why things are the way they are. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Upgrading to 40G
Have the networks changed that much? Some time ago we used to push L2 from mainframes on T/R or SDLC (I hated SDLC always had to guess the settings) over WAN with DLSW+. Now PWs and VPLS is the buzz. Yeah the good old 4500 was actually the first router I have played with, that was in Cisco networking academy at secondary school some 14 years ago. adam -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 1:34 PM To: Mark Tinka Cc: Peter Lothberg; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net; Mikael Abrahamsson Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Upgrading to 40G Hi, On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:49:26PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote: While I can appreciate this, history has always proven that users will find a use for something for which it wasn't initially intended - y'know, like using a Cisco 2901 as a core router :-). old age day 2503 made a good core router, back in the day... (we had two! A 2503 and a 4500, with a E1 between them...) This newfangled 2900 stuff, nobody needs that much RAM in a router! /old age day gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de fax: +49-89-35655025g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Upgrading to 40G
On February 28, 2014 1:33:52 PM CET, Gert Doering g...@greenie.muc.de wrote: Hi, On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:49:26PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote: While I can appreciate this, history has always proven that users will find a use for something for which it wasn't initially intended - y'know, like using a Cisco 2901 as a core router :-). old age day 2503 made a good core router, back in the day... (we had two! A 2503 and a 4500, with a E1 between them...) This newfangled 2900 stuff, nobody needs that much RAM in a router! /old age day gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de fax: +49-89-35655025 g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ Young whippersnapper :-). We had no need of those newfangled 2500s. We had AGS+es and liked it! (Still have a CGS running IOS 8.0 lying about somewhere...) -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Upgrading to 40G
On Friday, February 28, 2014 03:05:52 PM Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: I am all for abusing equipment in manners the vendor didn't think about, but it also helps to know what application the vendor thought the equipment would be used in, in order to understand why things are the way they are. Personally, I think this indicates a fundamental lack of focus from vendors (and the IETF) in understanding the actual problems operators have and need to solve. Yes, operators could probably do more in working with the IETF when standards are being developed. And vendors need to pay more attention to what their customers want, instead of being completely fixated on chasing customers who will finance the research and build of a new platform from scratch (Thank You, such operators - we might have still been running 3640's if it weren't for you). But, after all is said and done, the network is not yet commodity a la server compute power, and because only a few vendors build good network, I don't see this fundamental problem going away anytime soon, i.e., there isn't enough competition in this area. Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Upgrading to 40G
Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se writes: When 40GE and 100GE was standardized it was taken for granted that 40GE would be used to connect servers and perhaps a little inter-building backhaul, because of that only up to 10km was standardized. Just in case any vendors read this list: There is a market for 40km 40G optics! Even non-standard. /Benny ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Upgrading to 40G
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014, Mark Tinka wrote: Personally, I think this indicates a fundamental lack of focus from vendors (and the IETF) in understanding the actual problems operators have and need to solve. So for this perticular problem statement, it's standardized in IEEE, not IETF. Also I would say there is a fundamental lack of focus from operational people when it comes to progress in making the standards better and more efficient. Ops people are like any other recipient of developemnt, if you ask them, most of them just want the same, but more and cheaper. Doing leaps in efficiency isn't something they do, because that's not what they focus on, they focus on stability. I can understand that ops people feel the IETF or IEEE isn't taking their views seriously enough, but where should the balance be struck? I know some ops people who just want things to be the same, forever, because that's what they know and that's safe and stable. So, we're always going to have this conflict in order to have progress. The struggle is good, because you don't want ops people to rule the world and you don't want protocol designers to rule the world, you want compromise between the camps, that's when good balance usually happens. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Upgrading to 40G
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 04:31:54PM +0100, Benny Amorsen wrote: Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se writes: When 40GE and 100GE was standardized it was taken for granted that 40GE would be used to connect servers and perhaps a little inter-building backhaul, because of that only up to 10km was standardized. Just in case any vendors read this list: There is a market for 40km 40G optics! Even non-standard. The IEEE has a task force that is defining the specs for long distance 40 Gb/s, 40GBASE-ER4 http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/bm/index.html -- 5.2.b. Scope of the project: This project is to specify additions to and appropriate modifications of IEEE Std 802.3 to add 100 Gb/s Physical Layer (PHY) specifications and management parameters, using a four-lane electrical interface for operation on multimode and single-mode fiber optic cables, and to specify optional Energy Efficient Ethernet (EEE) for 40 Gb/s and 100Gb/s operation over fiber optic cables. In addition, to add 40 Gb/s Physical Layer (PHY) specifications and management parameters for operation on extended reach ( 10 km) single-mode fiber optic cables. -- Looks like Finisar has a transceiver under development: http://www.lightwaveonline.com/articles/2013/09/finisar-shows-off-cfp4-optical-transceiver-at-ecoc.html -Charles Charles E. Spurgeon University of Texas at Austin / ITS Networking c.spurg...@its.utexas.edu / 512.475.9265 ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
[c-nsp] Upgrading to 40G
Hi, We just started planning to upgrade our 10G (and nx10G) links to 40G (on ASR9k). Quick scan through Cisco website revealed that there are no 40km optics available from Cisco. That threw a big spanner into the works as we have a bunch of links definitely over LR budgets. So the question is - how do you do 40G in metro areas? Deploy some sort of amplifiers? Go through DWDM or OTN devices? kind regards Pshem ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Upgrading to 40G
Pshem, You should most likely take a look at the Cisco ASR 9000 Series Modular Line Cards: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/routers/asr-9000-series-aggregation-services-routers/data_sheet_c78-663866.html You can use either the A9K-MPA-1x40GE or A9K-MPA-2x40GE modules which support the 40G QSFP optics: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/interfaces_modules/transceiver_modules/compatibility/matrix/OL_24900.html#77832 HTH Arie -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Pshem Kowalczyk Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 17:49 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] Upgrading to 40G Hi, We just started planning to upgrade our 10G (and nx10G) links to 40G (on ASR9k). Quick scan through Cisco website revealed that there are no 40km optics available from Cisco. That threw a big spanner into the works as we have a bunch of links definitely over LR budgets. So the question is - how do you do 40G in metro areas? Deploy some sort of amplifiers? Go through DWDM or OTN devices? kind regards Pshem ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Upgrading to 40G
At this stage we wouldn't be able to justify the spend to go 100G on ASR9k. We're not talking about a single router or interface here, but quite a few. Are you counting $$ or DS0's? Besides - that doesn't really answer the question what to do with distances over the 10km. Ehh? It's plug-and play 80 chanels up to some 800km. At 1000km you will need some more clever amp then something from alibababa for $800. You have -3dBm out, need -18dBm on receiver side. If you only need one chanel, waste 3db on connectors, 3db margin and you can have 50km of SMF28. --P On 28 February 2014 13:06, Peter Lothberg r...@stupi.se wrote: We just started planning to upgrade our 10G (and nx10G) links to 40G (on ASR9k). Quick scan through Cisco website revealed that there are no 40km optics available from Cisco. That threw a big spanner into the works as we have a bunch of links definitely over LR budgets. So the question is - how do you do 40G in metro areas? Deploy some sort of amplifiers? Go through DWDM or OTN devices? Why 40? Do 100G coherent instead, you can build the whole optical system out of splitters as we did in Croatia.. Ask for line_cards with optics that conforms to this spec... http://www.stupi.se/Standards/100G-long-haul4.pdf and you can mix and match vendors... ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Upgrading to 40G
We just started planning to upgrade our 10G (and nx10G) links to 40G (on ASR9k). Quick scan through Cisco website revealed that there are no 40km optics available from Cisco. That threw a big spanner into the works as we have a bunch of links definitely over LR budgets. So the question is - how do you do 40G in metro areas? Deploy some sort of amplifiers? Go through DWDM or OTN devices? Why 40? Do 100G coherent instead, you can build the whole optical system out of splitters as we did in Croatia.. Ask for line_cards with optics that conforms to this spec... http://www.stupi.se/Standards/100G-long-haul4.pdf and you can mix and match vendors... -P ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Upgrading to 40G
Hi, At this stage we wouldn't be able to justify the spend to go 100G on ASR9k. We're not talking about a single router or interface here, but quite a few. Besides - that doesn't really answer the question what to do with distances over the 10km. kind regards Pshem On 28 February 2014 13:06, Peter Lothberg r...@stupi.se wrote: We just started planning to upgrade our 10G (and nx10G) links to 40G (on ASR9k). Quick scan through Cisco website revealed that there are no 40km optics available from Cisco. That threw a big spanner into the works as we have a bunch of links definitely over LR budgets. So the question is - how do you do 40G in metro areas? Deploy some sort of amplifiers? Go through DWDM or OTN devices? Why 40? Do 100G coherent instead, you can build the whole optical system out of splitters as we did in Croatia.. Ask for line_cards with optics that conforms to this spec... http://www.stupi.se/Standards/100G-long-haul4.pdf and you can mix and match vendors... -P ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Upgrading to 40G
Hi Arie, I found those documents and that's why I'm asking - all those QSFPs are LR at most - i.e. 10km. We currently have longer spans on our 10G links. kind regards Pshem On 28 February 2014 15:34, Arie Vayner (avayner) avay...@cisco.com wrote: Pshem, You should most likely take a look at the Cisco ASR 9000 Series Modular Line Cards: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/routers/asr-9000-series-aggregation-services-routers/data_sheet_c78-663866.html You can use either the A9K-MPA-1x40GE or A9K-MPA-2x40GE modules which support the 40G QSFP optics: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/interfaces_modules/transceiver_modules/compatibility/matrix/OL_24900.html#77832 HTH Arie -Original Message- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Pshem Kowalczyk Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 17:49 To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: [c-nsp] Upgrading to 40G Hi, We just started planning to upgrade our 10G (and nx10G) links to 40G (on ASR9k). Quick scan through Cisco website revealed that there are no 40km optics available from Cisco. That threw a big spanner into the works as we have a bunch of links definitely over LR budgets. So the question is - how do you do 40G in metro areas? Deploy some sort of amplifiers? Go through DWDM or OTN devices? kind regards Pshem ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
