[146472] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cable standards question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jay Ashworth)
Mon Nov 14 10:59:50 2011
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:59:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAHsqw9sqW8E=z9kk7yjUy5+E6_EzpjNW83krmmGBUL3C11a8rA@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jonathan Lassoff" <jof@thejof.com>
> I'd agree with this. I wouldn't worry about the standard so much as the
> practical aspects of a run. Once you have an idea of the approximate
> distance of the run, you can figure out which optics you plan on
> using. This will determine what physical connectors you'll need and what your
> approximate link budget will be.
>
> Based on that information, you can figure out which type to ask for
> (9um/125um single-mode, most likely), a range of path loss that you're
> comfortable with, and the physical termination you'd like at either
> end.
You Jon people[1] are, as near as I can tell, answering a question the OP didn't
actually ask. It may in fact be that he didn't realize he should spec the
design down to that level, but it sounded to me like what he was looking for
was "what language should I put in there to constrain the quality of the
implementation?"
Cheers,
-- jra
[1] :-)
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
