nanog mailing list archives
Re: 40G and 100G optics options
From: joel jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 11:38:32 -0800
On 12/19/17 10:24, Sabri Berisha wrote:
----- On Dec 18, 2017, at 9:49 AM, Fredrik Korsbäck hugge () nordu net wrote:This is the "failure" of us (the business) choosing QSFP as the de-factor formfactor for 100G, there is not power in that cage to make 10km+ optics in an easy way. If we would have pushed for CFP4 as the "last" formfactor in 100G land we would be much better off.How about OSFP? The OSFP MSA has a large number of backers, including Juniper, Arista, Finisar and Google. It's the vendors that chose to go for QSFP due to the density options in a single RU chassis.
osfp is potentially 540W in the front panel of a 1ru switch which poses it's own engineering challenges.
Thanks, Sabri
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Current thread:
- 40G and 100G optics options Baldur Norddahl (Dec 18)
- Re: 40G and 100G optics options Tim Pozar (Dec 18)
- Re: 40G and 100G optics options joel jaeggli (Dec 18)
- Re: 40G and 100G optics options Fredrik Korsbäck (Dec 18)
- Re: 40G and 100G optics options Sabri Berisha (Dec 19)
- Re: 40G and 100G optics options Fredrik Korsbäck (Dec 19)
- Re: 40G and 100G optics options joel jaeggli (Dec 19)
- Re: 40G and 100G optics options Sabri Berisha (Dec 19)
- Re: 40G and 100G optics options Brandon Butterworth (Dec 18)