Re: 100G-LR1 (DR/FR)
Coming back to this thread a little - what are folk seeing where 3rd party networks are involved? Are you able to convince providers to run FR optics, where LR4 are still commonplace? Mark.
Re: 100G-LR1 (DR/FR)
Tangentially related to xR1, have any of you started deploying SN connectors on your 400G head-ends? It looks like a pretty clever technology, adding discrete connectors per lane, but curious what the adoption has been thus far. On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 8:55 AM Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG wrote: > On Tue, 4 Apr 2023, Jared Mauch wrote: > > > We are willing to do 100G-LR1 if someone asks these days. It lets us be > > able to roll it up into 400G optics on our side as appropriate. > > I hope the industry moves to 100G-LR1, as doing 2x100GBASE-LR4 in a 400G > port is quite meh when it comes to faceplate capacity. > > Unfortunately 100GBASE-LR4 will be with us for a long long time. > > -- > Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se >
Re: 100G-LR1 (DR/FR)
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023, Jared Mauch wrote: We are willing to do 100G-LR1 if someone asks these days. It lets us be able to roll it up into 400G optics on our side as appropriate. I hope the industry moves to 100G-LR1, as doing 2x100GBASE-LR4 in a 400G port is quite meh when it comes to faceplate capacity. Unfortunately 100GBASE-LR4 will be with us for a long long time. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: 100G-LR1 (DR/FR)
> On Apr 3, 2023, at 4:54 PM, Tony Wicks wrote: > > I have been using the QSFP-100G-CWDM4 2k optics for within rack/DC for a > couple of years now. They are about the same price as SR optics but allow the > use of simple duplex single mode patches without blasting 10K optics at each > other over a 2M patch. Never had one fail or any compatibility issues. We saw some issues with the CWDM4 optics failing that caused us to make some changes in how we used those optics. I’ve also heard rumors some of the CWDM4 optics would go 10x the published spec, but I have not tested that myself. - Jared
Re: 100G-LR1 (DR/FR)
We are willing to do 100G-LR1 if someone asks these days. It lets us be able to roll it up into 400G optics on our side as appropriate. The big difference in DR/FR is the receiver sensitivity, they are all compatible optically, so it’s really about the DR/FR being yield rejects for LR1. It’s also less components in the LR1 vs 100G-LR4 since you don’t need 4 transmitters and 4 receivers and if one fails you toss the optic, so fewer components is also lower cost. - Jared > On Apr 2, 2023, at 8:14 PM, David Siegel wrote: > > At this point, I'd be happy to see others happily deploy a single-lambda > optic of almost any variety! Since deploying 400G in a clients network (but > 100G still being the preferred connection choice), any inquiry with respect > to LR1, FR1 or DR+ is met with "no thanks, LR4 please." > > If asked, I'd recommend FR1. They're available at a great price-point, and > 2km reach is adequate for most applications. > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 7:25 AM Jared Mauch wrote: > The common tech is 100G-LR4 these days - I'm wondering how many operators are > supporting the LR1 to allow its use on 400G and future 800G optics as those > use breakout to support 100G ports. > > Would you rather do a 400G port on a router vs 100LR1? > > Curious what others think. > > Sent via RFC1925 compliant device
Re: 100G-LR1 (DR/FR)
On Tue Apr 04, 2023 at 08:54:55AM +1200, Tony Wicks wrote: > I have been using the QSFP-100G-CWDM4 2k optics for within rack/DC > for a couple of years now. They are about the same price as SR optics > but allow the use of simple duplex single mode patches without blasting > 10K optics at each other over a 2M patch 10k used to be standard part at lower speeds. It's a bogus measure of link budget which is what really matters and is lower for the same rated distance with each speed increase. At 4.3dB an LR4 is hardly blasting. While you are fine in rack with the 1.6dB of FR4, in the average DC with a MMR it is marginal/broken. I'd prefer they had the old 1G LX's 9dB. brandon
Re: 100G-LR1 (DR/FR)
On 4/3/23 22:54, Tony Wicks wrote: I have been using the QSFP-100G-CWDM4 2k optics for within rack/DC for a couple of years now. They are about the same price as SR optics but allow the use of simple duplex single mode patches without blasting 10K optics at each other over a 2M patch. Never had one fail or any compatibility issues. Our use of multi-mode fibre is historical, from the days when vendors sold line cards that were mode-fixed and not pluggable. The installed base is so large that it's just easier to carry on with multi-mode for in-rack cabling, where it's needed. Mark.
RE: 100G-LR1 (DR/FR)
I have been using the QSFP-100G-CWDM4 2k optics for within rack/DC for a couple of years now. They are about the same price as SR optics but allow the use of simple duplex single mode patches without blasting 10K optics at each other over a 2M patch. Never had one fail or any compatibility issues. -Original Message- From: NANOG On Behalf Of Mark Tinka Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 11:04 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: 100G-LR1 (DR/FR) On 4/3/23 02:14, David Siegel wrote: > At this point, I'd be happy to see others happily deploy a > single-lambda optic of almost any variety! Since deploying 400G in a > clients network (but 100G still being the preferred connection > choice), any inquiry with respect to LR1, FR1 or DR+ is met with "no > thanks, LR4 please." > > If asked, I'd recommend FR1. They're available at a great > price-point, and 2km reach is adequate for most applications. Agreed. Pricing between LR4, FR and DR is not too far apart. The only optic that is substantially cheaper than all of them is the SR4. So in my mind, FR is the most ideal, although I'd still use SR4 for in-rack, multi-mode cabling. Mark.
Re: 100G-LR1 (DR/FR)
On 4/3/23 02:14, David Siegel wrote: At this point, I'd be happy to see others happily deploy a single-lambda optic of almost any variety! Since deploying 400G in a clients network (but 100G still being the preferred connection choice), any inquiry with respect to LR1, FR1 or DR+ is met with "no thanks, LR4 please." If asked, I'd recommend FR1. They're available at a great price-point, and 2km reach is adequate for most applications. Agreed. Pricing between LR4, FR and DR is not too far apart. The only optic that is substantially cheaper than all of them is the SR4. So in my mind, FR is the most ideal, although I'd still use SR4 for in-rack, multi-mode cabling. Mark.
Re: 100G-LR1 (DR/FR)
At this point, I'd be happy to see others happily deploy a single-lambda optic of almost any variety! Since deploying 400G in a clients network (but 100G still being the preferred connection choice), any inquiry with respect to LR1, FR1 or DR+ is met with "no thanks, LR4 please." If asked, I'd recommend FR1. They're available at a great price-point, and 2km reach is adequate for most applications. On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 7:25 AM Jared Mauch wrote: > The common tech is 100G-LR4 these days - I'm wondering how many operators > are supporting the LR1 to allow its use on 400G and future 800G optics as > those use breakout to support 100G ports. > > Would you rather do a 400G port on a router vs 100LR1? > > Curious what others think. > > Sent via RFC1925 compliant device
Re: 100G-LR1 (DR/FR)
On 3/31/23 15:51, Ca By wrote: We use a lot of 100g-FR For dense deployment and limited faceplate space, 100g-fr / dr are the only way. LR4 is dead to me. We run the SR4 optics for in-rack cabling, because they are about 4X cheaper than all the single-mode options. We have been heavy on the LR4 optics, but are now starting to test (and if happy, switch to) the FR units, as they are even cheaper than the LR4 option. The DR options don't make much sense for us, because we prefer the SR4 for in-rack cabling, and given how large data centres are nowadays, 500m might not enough to interconnect with customers. But for un-amplified Metro-E deployments, we are looking forward to testing Adva's 100G-ZR, which is also a single lane optic. Mark.
Re: 100G-LR1 (DR/FR)
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 6:23 AM Jared Mauch wrote: > The common tech is 100G-LR4 these days - I'm wondering how many operators > are supporting the LR1 to allow its use on 400G and future 800G optics as > those use breakout to support 100G ports. > > Would you rather do a 400G port on a router vs 100LR1? > > Curious what others think. We use a lot of 100g-FR For dense deployment and limited faceplate space, 100g-fr / dr are the only way. LR4 is dead to me. > > Sent via RFC1925 compliant device
100G-LR1 (DR/FR)
The common tech is 100G-LR4 these days - I'm wondering how many operators are supporting the LR1 to allow its use on 400G and future 800G optics as those use breakout to support 100G ports. Would you rather do a 400G port on a router vs 100LR1? Curious what others think. Sent via RFC1925 compliant device
