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.
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
> 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
>
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.
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
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.
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 almo
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
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
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 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
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
