- Previous message: Mikael Abrahamsson: "RE: IEEE 40GE & 100GE"
- Maybe in reply to: Bora Akyol: "IEEE 40GE & 100GE"
- Next in thread: Chris Cole: "RE: IEEE 40GE & 100GE"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
|
|
|
From: Brandon Butterworth (no email)
Date: Thu Dec 13 2007 - 04:14:23 EST
> (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
|
|
|