nanog mailing list archives
Re: MACsec SFP
From: Tim Durack <tdurack () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 08:49:32 -0400
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi> wrote:
On (2014-06-25 05:09 -0700), Eric Flanery (eric) wrote:That said, I do think the separately tunable tunable transmitters and receivers could be huge, especially if they came at only a reasonablysmall I don't think this technology exists. The receivers are always wideband and there is some filter in optical mux or in BX optic to avoid receiving reflections of your own TX. Not sure if tunable filter exists.
Tunable rx exists in pluggable format, but it is called 100G coherent :-) I would find tunable rx useful for 1/10G (eliminate DCM, power-splitter based WDM etc), but not sure there is enough market for the product to exist. Closest I got was inline FBG fiber patch. There are manufacturers for these. Tim:>
Current thread:
- Re: MACsec SFP, (continued)
- Re: MACsec SFP Pieter Hulshoff (Jun 24)
- Re: MACsec SFP Christopher Morrow (Jun 24)
- Re: MACsec SFP Saku Ytti (Jun 24)
- Re: MACsec SFP Christopher Morrow (Jun 24)
- Re: MACsec SFP Saku Ytti (Jun 24)
- Re: MACsec SFP Christopher Morrow (Jun 24)
- Re: MACsec SFP Eric Flanery (eric) (Jun 24)
- Re: MACsec SFP Pieter Hulshoff (Jun 25)
- Re: MACsec SFP Eric Flanery (eric) (Jun 25)
- Re: MACsec SFP Saku Ytti (Jun 25)
- Re: MACsec SFP Tim Durack (Jun 25)
- Re: MACsec SFP Randy Bush (Jun 24)
- Re: MACsec SFP Christopher Morrow (Jun 24)
- Re: MACsec SFP Randy Bush (Jun 24)
- Re: MACsec SFP Pieter Hulshoff (Jun 24)
- Re: MACsec SFP Aris Lambrianidis (Jun 24)
- Re: MACsec SFP Pieter Hulshoff (Jun 24)
- Re: MACsec SFP John Schiel (Jun 25)
- Re: MACsec SFP Christopher Morrow (Jun 25)
- Re: MACsec SFP Pieter Hulshoff (Jun 25)
- Re: MACsec SFP Christopher Morrow (Jun 25)
