[101071] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brandon Butterworth)
Thu Dec 13 04:16:01 2007
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:14:23 GMT
From: Brandon Butterworth <brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
> (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
