[166381] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Pad 1310nm cross-connects?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric Litvin)
Sun Oct 20 14:53:09 2013
From: Eric Litvin <eric@lumaoptics.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAN8DL0XVDUV20-Wk6LYuuuufq22VnNznOVRvwL=_aYt90bagkg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 21:33:08 -0700
To: Chris Costa <ccosta92630@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Hi Chris,
I'm with an optics vendor, Luma optics. All our optics are field programmabl=
e to work in any intended network environment. Regarding your question, its =
unnecessary to pad a 10km LR, even with such a short reach ( 20m) . If it w=
ere an ER or ZR, it would be a different story.=20
Good luck with you project.=20
Regards,=20
Eric Litvin
LumaOptics.net
650 996 7270
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 19, 2013, at 7:33 PM, Chris Costa <ccosta92630@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> What are the opinions/views on attenuating short, 1310nm LR cross-connects=
.
> Assume < 20m cable length and utilizing the same vendor optics on each
> side of the link. Considering the LR transmit spec doesn't exceed the
> receiver's high threshold value do you pad the receiver closer to the
> median RX range to avoid potential receiver burnout over time, or just
> leave it un-padded?
>=20
> Thanks
