nanog mailing list archives
Re: Optical transceiver question
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 20:36:08 +0200 (CEST)
On Wed, 7 Sep 2016, Frank Bulk wrote:
Is it an industry practice to market distance based on the hot optics, not on the worst case, which is minimum TX power?
No. If this is 1310nm optics with 0.4dB/km budget, the budget figure should be end-of-life figure, ie worst case according to the specs.
I don't like the "kilometer" figures, that can be marketed with very optimistic figures. However, if the transceiver says 0 to -5 transmit, if it doesn't transmit 0 to -5 then it's out of spec.
I treat the kilometer figure as "marketing", and look only at the optical specifications. So using your figures, if the device doesn't have 0 to -5 out, and can receive error free at -20, then it's out of spec and it should be replaced free of charge.
However, if they market 1310nm with 15dB link budget at 60km reach, then I'd consder that false marketing.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike () swm pp se
Current thread:
- Optical transceiver question Frank Bulk (Sep 07)
- Re: Optical transceiver question Eric Kuhnke (Sep 07)
- RE: Optical transceiver question Robert Jacobs (Sep 07)
- RE: Optical transceiver question Jameson, Daniel (Sep 07)
- Re: Optical transceiver question Nicolas Cortes (Sep 07)
- RE: Optical transceiver question Robert Jacobs (Sep 07)
- Re: Optical transceiver question Jared Mauch (Sep 07)
- Re: Optical transceiver question Olivier Benghozi (Sep 07)
- Re: Optical transceiver question Nick Hilliard (Sep 07)
- Re: Optical transceiver question Mikael Abrahamsson (Sep 08)
- RE: Optical transceiver question frnkblk (Sep 11)
- Re: Optical transceiver question Eric Kuhnke (Sep 07)