[c-nsp] Limiting Interface Traffic

[Per Carlson]

Hi Nick.

>> 1) Use of SFP+ instead of XFP-optics (no 40km optics at FCS, "never"
>> anything beyond 40km)
>
> It's a LAN switch. If you want a metro switch, get something with deeper
> buffers.

I'm speaking of ME-36/3800X, not the 3560G. And those babies are
indeed metro switches with large buffers :-)

> And you don't really want to run a 40km link on SFP+ either.

Exactly, that's why I would like to have XFP-optics (read: something
else than SFP+).

>> 2) Double depth of the switch (compared to ME3400E, Catalyst 35xx)
>
> minor pain.  Not going to get upset about it, as the switches still fit into
> an 800x600 cabinet.
>
>> 3) Power connectors in the back, network on the front (I really like
>> the ME3400E design)
>
> Again, don't care where these are, but I'm pleased that Cisco have finally
> built a general purpose access switch with onboard dual PSU.  Personally, I
> found RPSs to be insufferable.

It's not uncommon with space constrained environments where the
cabinets are placed against a wall and houses PDH/SDH/SONET equipment
today (~30 cm depth). In those cases you need a shallow switch
servicable from one side. BTW this is one of the selling points of the
ME-3400E (and ME3400):

Service-Provider-Friendly Hardware
Because Carrier Ethernet access switches are typically deployed in
small spaces in office buildings or apartments, the Cisco ME 3400E
Series offers a compact form factor and flexible mounting options. In
addition, the Cisco ME 3400E Series has all front-accessed connectors
to simplify field installation and troubleshooting.

IMHO this was a great initiative from Cisco, and I hoped they would
continue the effort with the newer ME-switches. But sadly not.

-- 
Pelle

RFC1925, truth 11:
 Every old idea will be proposed again with a different name and
 a different presentation, regardless of whether it works.