alex, In your talk, I agree that the CAN with your CWDM is not that expensive but you also mention that the tighter DWDM with long haul optics is expensive ie "Everybody knows how to do (active) xWDM by giving a lot of money to (insert vendor of choice]:"
When you talk about the tighter itu spacing for "real" DWDM and the lasers with fiber that can handle the power, jitter, chromatic dispersion et al. the optics you mention will not handle that. We have all duct taped optical systems on campus for the lab "and across the state of Georgia" see the Peach Net map. What is the largest number of lambdas you have actually run on a single fiber with your duct tape system and how bad was the optical cross talk? john ________________________________________ From: Alex Pilosov [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 1:37 PM To: John Lee Cc: Scott E. MacKenzie; NANOG Subject: Re: [NANOG] DWDM More Details On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, John Lee wrote: > Subscribe to Lightwave (at no charge) and look at the back issues for > networks. Show up at Supercom or OFC or what is replacing them and get the > latest on ROADM, full channel tunable lasers and maintenance costs. > > What size of network do you want to grow to before replacing the optical link > equipment including ILAs? > > Most any org can cost justify a CWDM / CAN since you can add one fiber pair > at a time and one lambda per fiber pair. > > DWDM gear is much more expensive and is aimed at 20 to 40 lambdas per > fiber for service providers while UDWDM and ULHWAN are aimed at trans > oceanic links and are very very expensive. DWDM gear is not expensive. Passive muxes cost little. Active transceivers cost money but not very expensive at all. Check out these two presentations (by yours truly et al): http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0606/pdf/lightning-talks/4-pilosov.pdf http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0610/presenter-pdfs/pilosov.pdf -alex _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
