nanog mailing list archives
Re: Reliability of Juniper MIC3-3D-1X100GE-CFP and CFP in general
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 08:24:20 -0700
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 22, 2017, at 07:38, Eric Dugas <edugas () unknowndevice ca> wrote: Hello, We're planning to phase out some 10G link-aggregations in favor of 100G interfaces. We've been looking at buying MIC3-3D-1X100GE-CFP, MPC3E and Fiberstore CFPs. I've been told that CFPs (in general) weren't that reliable. They were kinda "replaced" almost a year and a half or so after its introduction by CFP2 and then by CFP4 and so on. Size and power consumption aside, are the MIC3-3D-1X100GE-CFP and CFP modules reliable at all? Are they the SFP-TX of the 100GBase?
CFP has been around a while, like 8 years at this point. CFP2 and CFP4 are significantly smaller have accordingly lower power budgets and do not include the DSP on board (the linecard for cfp/2/4/8 differs significantly respecting level of integration components and so forth and also port count). Apart from the resulting low port density per card, which makes them unsuitable for a number applications they're mature products at this point.
Eric
Current thread:
- Reliability of Juniper MIC3-3D-1X100GE-CFP and CFP in general Eric Dugas (Jun 22)
- Re: Reliability of Juniper MIC3-3D-1X100GE-CFP and CFP in general Joel Jaeggli (Jun 22)