- Previous message: Owen DeLong: "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: Chris Cole (no email)
Date: Thu Dec 13 2007 - 18:48:38 EST
The 40km optics will require optical attenuators for distances somewhere
below 20km, possibly for 10km or less. They will certainly require
optical attenuators for 4km distances.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 1:52 PM
To: Chris Cole; Mikael Abrahamsson
Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes
Subject: Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE
Thus spake "Chris Cole" <>
> The 40km/10km cost ratio is between 1.6x and 2x, depending on
> the source.
>
> The 10km/4km cost ratio is between 1.15x and 1.3x, again
> depending on the source.
If those numbers translate into prices (not costs), then I'd prefer to
see
40km and 4km optics, with no 10km optics. The important point is that
the
40km optics neet to be able to handle 4.1km links with no attenuators,
preferably without any human tuning at all. You only pay the extra
capital
cost once (if there even is any, due to more volume of fewer parts), but
you
pay labor and sparing over and over.
S
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
|
|
|