nanog mailing list archives
Re: 40G and 100G optics options
From: Fredrik Korsbäck <hugge () nordu net>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 20:30:19 +0100
19 dec. 2017 kl. 19:24 skrev Sabri Berisha <sabri () cluecentral net>: ----- On Dec 18, 2017, at 9:49 AM, Fredrik Korsbäck hugge () nordu net wrote:This is the "failure" of us (the business) choosing QSFP as the de-factor formfactor for 100G, there is not power in that cage to make 10km+ optics in an easy way. If we would have pushed for CFP4 as the "last" formfactor in 100G land we would be much better off.How about OSFP? The OSFP MSA has a large number of backers, including Juniper, Arista, Finisar and Google.
Yes, on OSFP we have the possbility of making this right again for 400G. It will not have the same backward compability as QSFP-DD and not the same faceplate density (but close enough i would say). But in return we would most likely see longrange optics MUCH earlier in the lifecycle of 400G
It's the vendors that chose to go for QSFP due to the density options in a single RU chassis. Thanks, Sabri
Current thread:
- 40G and 100G optics options Baldur Norddahl (Dec 18)
- Re: 40G and 100G optics options Tim Pozar (Dec 18)
- Re: 40G and 100G optics options joel jaeggli (Dec 18)
- Re: 40G and 100G optics options Fredrik Korsbäck (Dec 18)
- Re: 40G and 100G optics options Sabri Berisha (Dec 19)
- Re: 40G and 100G optics options Fredrik Korsbäck (Dec 19)
- Re: 40G and 100G optics options joel jaeggli (Dec 19)
- Re: 40G and 100G optics options Sabri Berisha (Dec 19)
- Re: 40G and 100G optics options Brandon Butterworth (Dec 18)