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

Lee Starnes lee.t.starnes at gmail.com
Thu Apr 25 23:49:09 EDT 2013


Hi Andrew,

We have not tried any multimode xfp's. While the documentation shows a
table with only single mode optics, at the end of the document, it
lists an XFP-10G-MM-SR
in the ordering info table.


On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Andrew Jones <Andrew.Jones at alphawest.com.au
> wrote:

> Whilst we are talking about SPA-110GE cards, has anyone got these to work
> with a multimode sr xfp?
>
> Andrew Jones
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
> Edward Salonia
> Sent: Friday, 26 April 2013 1:25 AM
> To: Lee Starnes
> Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net; cisco-nsp
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] SPA-1X10GE-WL-V2 vs SPA-1X10GE-L-V2
>
> Sure. Future-proofing, when capable, is a good idea.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee Starnes <lee.t.starnes at gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 22:53:03
> To: <ed at edgeoc.net>
> Cc: cisco-nsp<cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net>;
> cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net<cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] SPA-1X10GE-WL-V2 vs SPA-1X10GE-L-V2
>
> 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/
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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