SC vs other connectors, optical budgets decreasing (was Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE)

From: Alex Pilosov (no email)
Date: Wed Dec 12 2007 - 23:54:31 EST

  • Next message: Mikael Abrahamsson: "Re: SC vs other connectors, optical budgets decreasing (was Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE)"

    On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:

    > Ted Seely and I are of the same mind on this. 2 dB sounds like plenty
    > for connector loss right up until you have to deal with multiple patch
    > bays in a structured system with amateurishly applied mechanical
    > splices. The difference between noting that the loss is a little high
    > but the link still works so you roll with it, and having to spend time
    > on the phone arguing with someone who thinks 24 dB link loss is A-OK,
    > will make the slight additional up front cost for the better grade
    > optics look very inexpensive indeed...
    This is somewhat interesting subject. The optical margins for "short-haul"
    optics are getting tighter. The number of crossconnects in a structural
    wiring system is getting larger. Given the specified SC connector
    insertion loss of .75dB, it is not uncommon to see loss within a facility
    for "working" crossconnects of 3-4dB.

    Is anyone giving thought to going forward to connectors like MU/E2000 for
    structured wiring (which have much lower specified loss - I believe .1dB),
    or the installed base makes it prohibitive?

    -alex [not mlc anything]


  • Next message: Mikael Abrahamsson: "Re: SC vs other connectors, optical budgets decreasing (was Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE)"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD