[177872] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Low cost WDM gear
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kenneth McRae)
Sat Feb 7 14:04:19 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: Rodrigo 1telecom <rodrigo@1telecom.com.br>
From: Kenneth McRae <kenneth.mcrae@me.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2015 19:04:10 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Hi Enviado,=0A=0AI cannot recommend FiberStore as I had a bad experience w=
ith them. =C2=A0I needed to cover only 3km from A to B side. =C2=A0When us=
ing 10km optics, I saw a loss of over 5db =C2=A0with their passive mux ins=
erted into the path which created a total loss of over -20db which is outs=
ide of the tolerances for our equipment with 10km SFP+. =C2=A0Using anothe=
r vendors low insertion loss mux corrected our issue. =C2=A0I am sure if y=
ou are using an 80km optic, you may be able to tolerate a higher insertion=
loss to cover < 60km. =C2=A0I also notice that their CDWM optics averaged=
about 3db less in power output when compared to other vendors.=0A=0AThank=
s=0A=0AKenneth=0A=0AOn Feb 07, 2015, at 10:33 AM, Rodrigo 1telecom <rodrig=
o@1telecom.com.br> wrote:=0A=0AHi kenneth... which the distance do you hav=
e from side A to side B when you using passive solutions from fiberstore( =
mux and demux)?=0AI buy this mux and demux(4 channels single fiber) and on=
ly make a test about 60km( mux side A and demux on side B) with sfp+10gb f=
or 80km... ( only see ddm on my ex3300( about -19db for 60km). Test switch=
access with ssh and pinging tests...=0AWhat kind os issue do you have? Fo=
r distances less than 60km is this solution good?=0AThanks!!!=0A=0AEnviado=
via iPhone =EF=A3=BF=0AGrupo Connectoway=0A=0AEm 07/02/2015, =C3=A0s 14:5=
5, Kenneth McRae <kenneth.mcrae@me.com> escreveu:=0AMike,=0AI just replace=
d a bunch of FiberStore WDM passive muxes with OSI Hardware equipment. The=
FiberStore gear was a huge disappointment (excessive loss, poor technical=
support, refusal to issue refund without threatening legal action, etc.).=
I have had good results from the OSI equipment so far. I run passive muxe=
s for CWDM (8 - 16 channels).=0AOn Feb 07, 2015, at 09:51 AM, Manuel Mar=C3=
=ADn <mmg@transtelco.net> wrote:=0AHi Mike=0AI can recommend a couple of v=
endors that provide cost effective solutions.=0AEkinops & Packetlight.=0AO=
n Saturday, February 7, 2015, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:=0AI k=
now there are various Asian vendors for low cost (less than $500) muxes=0A=
to throw 16 or however many colors onto a strand. However, they don't work=
=0Aso well when you don't control the optics used on both sides (therefore=
=0Amust use standard wavelengths), obviously only do a handful of channels=
and=0Ahave a distance limitation.=0AWhat solutions are out there that don=
't cost an arm and a leg?=0A-----=0AMike Hammett=0AIntelligent Computing S=
olutions=0Ahttp://www.ics-il.com=0A--=0ATRANSTELCO| Manuel Marin | VP Engi=
neering | US: *+1 915-217-2232* | MX: *+52=0A656-257-1109*=0ACONFIDENTIALI=
TY NOTICE: This communication is intended only for the use=0Aof the indivi=
dual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain=0Ainformation that=
is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure=0Aunder applicabl=
e law. If you are not the intended recipient of this=0Ainformation, you ar=
e notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or=0Acopying of the =
communication is strictly prohibited.=0AAVISO DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD: Esta co=
municaci=C3=B3n es s=C3=B3lo para el uso de la=0Apersona o entidad a la qu=
e se dirige y puede contener informaci=C3=B3n=0Aprivilegiada, confidencial=
y exenta de divulgaci=C3=B3n bajo la legislaci=C3=B3n=0Aaplicable. Si no =
es el destinatario de esta informaci=C3=B3n, se le notifica que=0Acualquie=
r uso, difusi=C3=B3n, distribuci=C3=B3n o copia de la comunicaci=C3=B3n es=
t=C3=A1=0Aestrictamente prohibido.=
