nanog mailing list archives
Re: MACsec SFP
From: Pieter Hulshoff <phulshof () aimvalley nl>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:55:35 +0200
That's a large number of proposals. :) I'll have a chat with some colleagues about the types outside my areas of expertise to see what they think about it.
You're not the first to mention separately tunable transmitters and receivers. Do you think there would be a great demand for this device?
Anyone else care to wager in on these proposals; do any of them strike you as something you would be interested in as well?
Kind regards, Pieter Hulshoff
Current thread:
- Re: MACsec SFP, (continued)
- Re: MACsec SFP Pieter Hulshoff (Jun 24)
- RE: MACsec SFP Frank Bulk (iname.com) (Jun 24)
- Re: MACsec SFP Christopher Morrow (Jun 24)
- Re: MACsec SFP Pieter Hulshoff (Jun 24)
- Re: MACsec SFP Christopher Morrow (Jun 24)
- Re: MACsec SFP Saku Ytti (Jun 24)
- Re: MACsec SFP Christopher Morrow (Jun 24)
- Re: MACsec SFP Saku Ytti (Jun 24)
- Re: MACsec SFP Christopher Morrow (Jun 24)
- Re: MACsec SFP Eric Flanery (eric) (Jun 24)
- Re: MACsec SFP Pieter Hulshoff (Jun 25)
- Re: MACsec SFP Eric Flanery (eric) (Jun 25)
- Re: MACsec SFP Saku Ytti (Jun 25)
- Re: MACsec SFP Tim Durack (Jun 25)
- Re: MACsec SFP Randy Bush (Jun 24)
- Re: MACsec SFP Christopher Morrow (Jun 24)
- Re: MACsec SFP Randy Bush (Jun 24)
- Re: MACsec SFP Pieter Hulshoff (Jun 24)
- Re: MACsec SFP Aris Lambrianidis (Jun 24)
- Re: MACsec SFP Pieter Hulshoff (Jun 24)
- Re: MACsec SFP John Schiel (Jun 25)