[195122] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Reliability of Juniper MIC3-3D-1X100GE-CFP and CFP in general
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Jaeggli)
Thu Jun 22 11:26:35 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALKrK4=sUj9JfBD6DBcBpwyLC5A8aWzSYV+NDwkdGHC9FbcjpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 08:24:20 -0700
To: Eric Dugas <edugas@unknowndevice.ca>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 22, 2017, at 07:38, Eric Dugas <edugas@unknowndevice.ca> wrote:
>=20
> Hello,
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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 o=
f
> the 100GBase?
CFP has been around a while, like 8 years at this point. CFP2 and CFP4 are s=
ignificantly smaller have accordingly lower power budgets and do not include=
the DSP on board (the linecard for cfp/2/4/8 differs significantly respecti=
ng level of integration components and so forth and also port count).
Apart from the resulting low port density per card, which makes them unsuita=
ble for a number applications they're mature products at this point.
>=20
> Eric
>=20