[101065] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert E. Seastrom)
Wed Dec 12 15:58:38 2007
To: deepak@ai.net
Cc: Chris Cole <chris.cole@finisar.com>,
"Justin M. Streiner" <streiner@cluebyfour.org>, nanog@merit.edu
From: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs@seastrom.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:57:44 -0500
In-Reply-To: <476044C1.6070202@ai.net> (Deepak Jain's message of "Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:29:53 -0500")
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Deepak Jain <deepak@ai.net> writes:
>> I'm on board with that as far as it goes, but has the scenario of
>> adjustable launch powers so that you don't ever need attenuators plus
>> the economy of scale that would come from having *one* type of
>> interface for 1m-10km runs been considered? It seems to me based on
>> what I've seen of the optics market that once you make something a
>> mass-produced commodity the price falls awfully far - suppose the
>> price difference was $250 vs. $375, that's a big difference on a
>> percentage basis but pocket change on an absolute basis.
>>
>
> I'm inclined to agree that when we are talking about unit numbers
> between 10km >> 40km optics, the marginal price change of a few bucks
> per optic (vs the human time to go and fix/groom/find/reduce optical
> losses) is pretty minimal.
>
> For that 1% of customers that finds their total cost significantly
> impacted (vs, say the cost of the equipment these are going into,
> etc).... would force 10% of us to have to engineer bypass
> cross-connect panels with fewer physical connections (and spliced ones
> at that) to get the job done.
>
> Just my guess... but no one has really complained about 10km reach
> optics being so expensive after the first 5 minutes they've been on
> the market.
>
> Personally, I wish this much cost could be cut out of the 80/120km
> optics market... but hey, no one is asking me.
So, the unspoken point of what I was suggesting is "why not two kinds
of optics: medium to short and super-long?? Simplifies sparing.
---Rob
