[c-nsp] SFP-10G-LRM in Nexus 5000

[Matthieu Michaud]

Hello,

Some LRM run on both SM and MM including Cisco's. At $JOB we do use
10G-LRM a lot.
It's the predominent transciever because estate standards says "SM
EVERYWHERE !@#!", we buy only Cisco brands and LR is 4 times the price
of an LRM. It was removed from Nexus compatibility matrix in recent
NX-OS release because of overheating issue as far as I was told by our
SE.

Regards,

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Mike Hale <eyeronic.design at gmail.com> wrote:
> "No."
>
> I stand corrected.  ;)
>
> "What's on the opposite side of the 5548s?"
>
> They are up and running right now on a 3750X and a 2960S.  I have a
> vague memory of having them in some servers in the past as well, but
> I'm not seeing any of those right at this moment.
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Crist J. Clark
> <cjc+cisco-nsp at pumpky.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 03:21:27PM -0700, Mike Hale wrote:
>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the LRM SFPs are designed to go over MMF,
>>> not SMF.  Isn't that going to be a problem?
>>
>> No. As someone else already pointed out, Cisco says you can run LRM over
>> SMF for 300m, which is actually longer than they say you can run it over
>> MMF, 220m. You also don't need mode conditioning over SMF.
>>
>>> We're using some LRM SFPs between floors to a 5548, and they function
>>> just fine.
>>
>> What's on the opposite side of the 5548s? It may be similar to what we're
>> seeing. It looks like this works fine Nexus to Nexus, but it is flaky
>> Nexus to Catalyst.
>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Crist J. Clark
>>> <cjc+cisco-nsp at pumpky.net> wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:45:58PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>>> >> On 14/09/2015 22:39, Crist J. Clark wrote:
>>> >> > We are running all of this over SMF.
>>> >>
>>> >> why are you using LRM transceivers then?
>>> >
>>> > I am not exactly sure of the design decisions behind the choice to use LRM over
>>> > SMF to orginally connect the distro to the core when the campus was built. But
>>> > given that it was working, and we already had almost enough spare LRMs on hand
>>> > to complete the project, It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time.
>>> >
>>> > We also have OM3 MMF between the buildings so replacing this all with SR is
>>> > the main plan right now, but whatever the problem is with the LRM modules
>>> > looks more like software/firmware than a problem with the fiber paths (the links
>>> > always do eventually come up with good light readings and no errors), and we
>>> > were just curious if anyone had seen this issue with 5ks and LRM before and
>>> > found a way to deal with it.
>>> > --
>>> > Crist J. Clark
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > 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/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
>>
>> --
>> Crist J. Clark
>
>
>
> --
> 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
> _______________________________________________
> 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/



-- 
Matthieu MICHAUD