nanog mailing list archives
Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE
From: Brandon Butterworth <brandon () rd bbc co uk>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:14:23 GMT
(totally disregarding the HSSG policy of talking cost and not price here)
All we see is price, don't forget step 3. Profit
If the cost estimate has any bearing on actual end-user purchase price, then I would say that the 3-4km reach alternative makes sense.
Consider C prices. If there are two parts there is scope to charge a lot more for 10km than if it was the only option 10km is a convenient distance for inter pop use around London Docklands, similarly around other IX. I guess over half our 10G fails the 4km spec
Having a 10km reach alternative costing 60% of 40km reach optics just doesn't make sense.
I'm in favour of less permutations of reach and package, a higher volume of fewer variants would reduce the cost of stocking spares which could be cheaper due to volume manufacture
Otoh if we need attenuators for 40km optics on 5km links then that's a complicating factor as well. That's not been needed before.
Engineering links increases cost. We can do 100G optics but it's still too hard to do auto link power adjustment? brandon
Current thread:
- SC vs other connectors, optical budgets decreasing (was Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE), (continued)
- SC vs other connectors, optical budgets decreasing (was Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE) Alex Pilosov (Dec 12)
- Re: SC vs other connectors, optical budgets decreasing (was Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE) Mikael Abrahamsson (Dec 12)
- SC vs other connectors, optical budgets decreasing (was Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE) Alex Pilosov (Dec 12)
- Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE Robert E. Seastrom (Dec 12)
- RE: IEEE 40GE & 100GE Mikael Abrahamsson (Dec 12)
- RE: IEEE 40GE & 100GE Chris Cole (Dec 13)
- Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE Stephen Sprunk (Dec 13)
- Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE Owen DeLong (Dec 13)
- RE: IEEE 40GE & 100GE Chris Cole (Dec 13)
- Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE Robert E. Seastrom (Dec 13)
- RE: IEEE 40GE & 100GE Chris Cole (Dec 13)
- RE: IEEE 40GE & 100GE Chris Cole (Dec 13)