joel jaeggli wrote: >>> The problem is that physical layer of 100GE (with 10*10G) and >>> 10*10GE are identical (if same plug and cable are used both for >>> 100GE and 10*10GE). >> Interesting. Well, I would say if there are no technical >> improvements that will significantly improve performance over the best >> possible carrier Ethernet bonding implementation and no cost savings >> at the physical layer over picking the higher data rate physical >> layer standard, _after_ considering the increased hardware costs >> due to newly manufactured components for a standard that is just >> newer. > There is a real-estate problem. 10 sfp+ connectors takes a lot more > space than one qsfp+. mtp/mpo connectors and the associated trunk ribbon > cables are a lot more compact than the equivalent 10Gbe footprint > terminated as LC.
That's why I wrote: >>> (if same plug and cable are used both for >>> 100GE and 10*10GE). As is mentioned in 40G thread, 24 Port 40GE interface module of Extreme BD X8 can be used as 96 port 10GE. > When you add cwdm as 40Gb/s lr4 does the fiber count > drops by a lot. That's also possible with 4*10GE and 4*10GE is a lot more flexible to enable 3*10GE failure mode trivially and allows for very large skew. Masataka Ohta