[c-nsp] SPA-1X10GE-WL-V2 vs SPA-1X10GE-L-V2

Lee Starnes lee.t.starnes at gmail.com
Thu Apr 25 01:53:03 EDT 2013

Hi Ed,

So there should be no issue if they are used for what we do other than they
cost more? We may have some SONET applications in the near future, so if I
wanted to standardize on one card, this should work both ways? This was my
understanding based on what I read, but I don't want to assume that things
not clearly stated were there. Our main use being etherchannel stuff.


On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Edward Salonia <ed at edgeoc.net> wrote:

> L does only LANPHY
> If you are just using this for 10gige LAN interconnect, use the L. If you
> need WAN/SONET support, get the WL.
> - Ed
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee Starnes <lee.t.starnes at gmail.com>
> Sender: "cisco-nsp" <cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net>Date: Wed, 24 Apr
> 2013 16:12:26
> To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net<cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
> Subject: [c-nsp] SPA-1X10GE-WL-V2 vs SPA-1X10GE-L-V2
> Hello,
> I was wondering if anyone here has used the SPA-1X10GE-WL-V2 and if so how
> it differs with the non "W" version with relation to Ethernet and
> EtherBundles.
> We currently use the non "W" versions for our ethernet uplinks to backbone
> connections as well as between our switches and routers. In some cases, we
> do EtherBundles for 20 or 30G links. I was wondering if the "W" version
> would have any issues with this or if it's only difference is the ability
> to do POS.
> -Lee
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list