Re: Low cost WDM gear

[Faisal Imtiaz <faisal () snappytelecom net>]

More power to you .... 

I always get a chuckle out of statements such as ... "Compared FiberStore to another Vendor"... 

It was pointed out to me long time ago.... when someone said.. "My Chevy is better than a Ford".... 
Someone pointed out, hey, which Chevy ? the Chevette ? or the Corvette ? and Which Ford the Fiesta or Mustang ? 

Every mfg. has a lots and lots of products, and they are always getting improved... 

One has to pay attention to the specs.. even the same model products at different times don't have the same specs ! 

:) 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support () Snappytelecom net 

----- Original Message -----

> From: "Kenneth McRae" <kenneth.mcrae () me com>
> To: "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal () snappytelecom net>
> Cc: "Rodrigo 1telecom" <rodrigo () 1telecom com br>, "NANOG" <nanog () nanog org>
> Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2015 3:49:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Low cost WDM gear

> That's why I engage the engineering resources on their end to make sure the
> chosen candidate will support the use case. I have now performed an A/B
> comparison and the FiberStore gear is inferior. Excessive loss on the mux
> and optics.

> On Feb 07, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal () snappytelecom net> wrote:

> > If you pay close attention to the Spec Sheets, on power output, insertion
> > loss, sensitivity, and do the proper calculation for your link, then using
> > anyone's products, passive or active will work unless the devices do not
> > meet specified specs.

> > If you don't do your homework, cals on the design, loss, and just buy stuff
> > based on whatever, then it does not matter who the mfg. is, you are very
> > very likely to be surprised in a bad way.

> > :)

> > Faisal Imtiaz
>
> > Snappy Internet & Telecom

> > ----- Original Message -----

> > > From: "Rodrigo 1telecom" < rodrigo () 1telecom com br >
>
> > > To: "Kenneth McRae" < kenneth.mcrae () me com >
>
> > > Cc: "NANOG" < nanog () nanog org >
>
> > > Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2015 3:24:43 PM
>
> > > Subject: Re: Low cost WDM gear
>
> > > What others vendors do you using? Here in Brazil only PADTEC have this
>
> > > passive solution... Some days ago Digitel contact me to show your
> > > multiplex
>
> > > solution... Is a active solution...
>
> > > We import this from fiberstore, but i don't know others vendors to buy
> > > 10G
>
> > > sfp+ cwdm and this mux/demux...
>
> > > Enviado via iPhone 
>
> > > Grupo Connectoway
>
> > > > Em 07/02/2015, às 16:04, Kenneth McRae < kenneth.mcrae () me com >
> > > > escreveu:
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Hi Enviado,
>
> > > >
>
> > > > I cannot recommend FiberStore as I had a bad experience with them. I
>
> > > > needed to cover only 3km from A to B side. When using 10km optics, I
> > > > saw
>
> > > > a loss of over 5db with their passive mux inserted into the path which
>
> > > > created a total loss of over -20db which is outside of the tolerances
> > > > for
>
> > > > our equipment with 10km SFP+. Using another vendors low insertion loss
>
> > > > mux corrected our issue. I am sure if you are using an 80km optic, you
>
> > > > may be able to tolerate a higher insertion loss to cover < 60km. I also
>
> > > > notice that their CDWM optics averaged about 3db less in power output
> > > > when
>
> > > > compared to other vendors.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Thanks
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Kenneth
>
> > > >
>
> > > > > On Feb 07, 2015, at 10:33 AM, Rodrigo 1telecom <
> > > > > rodrigo () 1telecom com br
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > > > Hi kenneth... which the distance do you have from side A to side B
> > > > > when
>
> > > > > you using passive solutions from fiberstore( mux and demux)?
>
> > > > > I buy this mux and demux(4 channels single fiber) and only make a test
>
> > > > > about 60km( mux side A and demux on side B) with sfp+10gb for 80km...
> > > > > (
>
> > > > > only see ddm on my ex3300( about -19db for 60km). Test switch access
> > > > > with
>
> > > > > ssh and pinging tests...
>
> > > > > What kind os issue do you have? For distances less than 60km is this
>
> > > > > solution good?
>
> > > > > Thanks!!!
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > Enviado via iPhone 
>
> > > > > Grupo Connectoway
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > > Em 07/02/2015, às 14:55, Kenneth McRae < kenneth.mcrae () me com >
> > > > > > escreveu:
>
> > > > > > Mike,
>
> > > > > > I just replaced a bunch of FiberStore WDM passive muxes with OSI
> > > > > > Hardware
>
> > > > > > equipment. The FiberStore gear was a huge disappointment (excessive
>
> > > > > > loss, poor technical support, refusal to issue refund without
>
> > > > > > threatening legal action, etc.). I have had good results from the OSI
>
> > > > > > equipment so far. I run passive muxes for CWDM (8 - 16 channels).
>
> > > > > > On Feb 07, 2015, at 09:51 AM, Manuel Marín < mmg () transtelco net >
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Hi Mike
>
> > > > > > I can recommend a couple of vendors that provide cost effective
>
> > > > > > solutions.
>
> > > > > > Ekinops & Packetlight.
>
> > > > > > On Saturday, February 7, 2015, Mike Hammett < nanog () ics-il net >
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > I know there are various Asian vendors for low cost (less than $500)
>
> > > > > > muxes
>
> > > > > > to throw 16 or however many colors onto a strand. However, they don't
>
> > > > > > work
>
> > > > > > so well when you don't control the optics used on both sides
> > > > > > (therefore
>
> > > > > > must use standard wavelengths), obviously only do a handful of
> > > > > > channels
>
> > > > > > and
>
> > > > > > have a distance limitation.
>
> > > > > > What solutions are out there that don't cost an arm and a leg?
>
> > > > > > -----
>
> > > > > > Mike Hammett
>
> > > > > > Intelligent Computing Solutions
>
> > > > > > http://www.ics-il.com
>
> > > > > > --
>
> > > > > > TRANSTELCO| Manuel Marin | VP Engineering | US: *+1 915-217-2232* |
> > > > > > MX:
>
> > > > > > *+52
>
> > > > > > 656-257-1109*
>
> > > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication is intended only for the
> > > > > > use
>
> > > > > > of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
>
> > > > > > information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from
> > > > > > disclosure
>
> > > > > > under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient of this
>
> > > > > > information, you are notified that any use, dissemination,
> > > > > > distribution,
>
> > > > > > or
>
> > > > > > copying of the communication is strictly prohibited.
>
> > > > > > AVISO DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD: Esta comunicación es sólo para el uso de
> > > > > > la
>
> > > > > > persona o entidad a la que se dirige y puede contener información
>
> > > > > > privilegiada, confidencial y exenta de divulgación bajo la
> > > > > > legislación
>
> > > > > > aplicable. Si no es el destinatario de esta información, se le
> > > > > > notifica
>
> > > > > > que
>
> > > > > > cualquier uso, difusión, distribución o copia de la comunicación está
>
> > > > > > estrictamente prohibido.