Kenneth, I am sorry, but it sounds like you made a mistake in not calculating loss of the devices in the path, and are blaming a Mfg for the mistake... They clearly list the insertion loss for the different muxes in the specs on their website.
Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kenneth McRae" <kenneth.mc...@me.com> > To: "Rodrigo 1telecom" <rodr...@1telecom.com.br> > Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> > Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2015 2:04:10 PM > Subject: Re: Low cost WDM gear > > Hi Enviado, > > I cannot recommend FiberStore as I had a bad experience with them. I needed > to cover only 3km from A to B side. When using 10km optics, I saw a loss of > over 5db with their passive mux inserted into the path which created a > total loss of over -20db which is outside of the tolerances for our > equipment with 10km SFP+. Using another vendors low insertion loss mux > corrected our issue. I am sure if you are using an 80km optic, you may be > able to tolerate a higher insertion loss to cover < 60km. I also notice > that their CDWM optics averaged about 3db less in power output when compared > to other vendors. > > Thanks > > Kenneth > > On Feb 07, 2015, at 10:33 AM, Rodrigo 1telecom <rodr...@1telecom.com.br> > wrote: > > Hi kenneth... which the distance do you have from side A to side B when you > using passive solutions from fiberstore( mux and demux)? > I buy this mux and demux(4 channels single fiber) and only make a test about > 60km( mux side A and demux on side B) with sfp+10gb for 80km... ( only see > ddm on my ex3300( about -19db for 60km). Test switch access with ssh and > pinging tests... > What kind os issue do you have? For distances less than 60km is this solution > good? > Thanks!!! > > Enviado via iPhone > Grupo Connectoway > > Em 07/02/2015, às 14:55, Kenneth McRae <kenneth.mc...@me.com> escreveu: > Mike, > I just replaced a bunch of FiberStore WDM passive muxes with OSI Hardware > equipment. The FiberStore gear was a huge disappointment (excessive loss, > poor technical support, refusal to issue refund without threatening legal > action, etc.). I have had good results from the OSI equipment so far. I run > passive muxes for CWDM (8 - 16 channels). > On Feb 07, 2015, at 09:51 AM, Manuel Marín <m...@transtelco.net> wrote: > Hi Mike > I can recommend a couple of vendors that provide cost effective solutions. > Ekinops & Packetlight. > On Saturday, February 7, 2015, Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net> wrote: > I know there are various Asian vendors for low cost (less than $500) muxes > to throw 16 or however many colors onto a strand. However, they don't work > so well when you don't control the optics used on both sides (therefore > must use standard wavelengths), obviously only do a handful of channels and > have a distance limitation. > What solutions are out there that don't cost an arm and a leg? > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > -- > TRANSTELCO| Manuel Marin | VP Engineering | US: *+1 915-217-2232* | MX: *+52 > 656-257-1109* > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication is intended only for the use > of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain > information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure > under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient of this > information, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or > copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. > AVISO DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD: Esta comunicación es sólo para el uso de la > persona o entidad a la que se dirige y puede contener información > privilegiada, confidencial y exenta de divulgación bajo la legislación > aplicable. Si no es el destinatario de esta información, se le notifica que > cualquier uso, difusión, distribución o copia de la comunicación está > estrictamente prohibido.
