We are willing to do 100G-LR1 if someone asks these days. It lets us be able to roll it up into 400G optics on our side as appropriate.
The big difference in DR/FR is the receiver sensitivity, they are all compatible optically, so it’s really about the DR/FR being yield rejects for LR1. It’s also less components in the LR1 vs 100G-LR4 since you don’t need 4 transmitters and 4 receivers and if one fails you toss the optic, so fewer components is also lower cost. - Jared > On Apr 2, 2023, at 8:14 PM, David Siegel <arizonag...@gmail.com> wrote: > > At this point, I'd be happy to see others happily deploy a single-lambda > optic of almost any variety! Since deploying 400G in a clients network (but > 100G still being the preferred connection choice), any inquiry with respect > to LR1, FR1 or DR+ is met with "no thanks, LR4 please." > > If asked, I'd recommend FR1. They're available at a great price-point, and > 2km reach is adequate for most applications. > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 7:25 AM Jared Mauch <ja...@puck.nether.net> wrote: > The common tech is 100G-LR4 these days - I'm wondering how many operators are > supporting the LR1 to allow its use on 400G and future 800G optics as those > use breakout to support 100G ports. > > Would you rather do a 400G port on a router vs 100LR1? > > Curious what others think. > > Sent via RFC1925 compliant device
