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

[Lee Starnes]

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.

-Lee


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

> WL does LANPHY, WANPHY, and SONET/SDH.
> 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/
>