nanog mailing list archives
Re: 100G-LR1 (DR/FR)
From: Tyler Conrad <Tyler () tgconrad com>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2023 09:03:47 -0700
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 <nanog () nanog org> 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 Abrahamsson email: swmike () swm pp se
Current thread:
- Re: 100G-LR1 (DR/FR) Mark Tinka (Apr 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: 100G-LR1 (DR/FR) David Siegel (Apr 02)
- Re: 100G-LR1 (DR/FR) Mark Tinka (Apr 03)
- RE: 100G-LR1 (DR/FR) Tony Wicks (Apr 03)
- Re: 100G-LR1 (DR/FR) Mark Tinka (Apr 03)
- Re: 100G-LR1 (DR/FR) Brandon Butterworth (Apr 03)
- Re: 100G-LR1 (DR/FR) Jared Mauch (Apr 04)
- Re: 100G-LR1 (DR/FR) Mark Tinka (Apr 03)
- Re: 100G-LR1 (DR/FR) Jared Mauch (Apr 04)
- Re: 100G-LR1 (DR/FR) Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG (Apr 04)
- Re: 100G-LR1 (DR/FR) Tyler Conrad (Apr 04)