|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: IEEE 40GE & 100GE
> (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
|