Re: 100G-LR1 (DR/FR)

[Jared Mauch <jared () puck nether net>]

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.  

The big difference in DR/FR is the receiver sensitivity, they are all compatible optically, so it’s really about the 
DR/FR being yield rejects for LR1.  It’s also less components in the LR1 vs 100G-LR4 since you don’t need 4 
transmitters and 4 receivers and if one fails you toss the optic, so fewer components is also lower cost.

- Jared

> On Apr 2, 2023, at 8:14 PM, David Siegel <arizonagull () gmail com> wrote:
>
> At this point, I'd be happy to see others happily deploy a single-lambda optic of almost any variety!  Since 
> deploying 400G in a clients network (but 100G still being the preferred connection choice), any inquiry with respect 
> to LR1, FR1 or DR+ is met with "no thanks, LR4 please."
>
> If asked, I'd recommend FR1.  They're available at a great price-point, and 2km reach is adequate for most 
> applications.
>
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 7:25 AM Jared Mauch <jared () puck nether net> wrote:
> The common tech is 100G-LR4 these days - I'm wondering how many operators are supporting the LR1 to allow its use on 
> 400G and future 800G optics as those use breakout to support 100G ports. 
>
> Would you rather do a 400G port on a router vs 100LR1?
>
> Curious what others think. 
>
> Sent via RFC1925 compliant device