[101067] in North American Network Operators' Group
SC vs other connectors, optical budgets decreasing (was Re: IEEE
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex Pilosov)
Wed Dec 12 23:55:26 2007
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 23:54:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Alex Pilosov <alex@pilosoft.com>
To: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs@seastrom.com>
cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <86ir33iutm.fsf@seastrom.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
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]
