On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 04:21:20AM +, Thomas Maufer wrote:
> IIRC, it takes about 13W to maintain a 10GBASET connection. That's a lot of
> power to drain from a tiny board that wasn't designed to supply such loads.
>
> ~tom
>
> On Saturday, February 1, 2014 1:32:58 PM, Phil Bedard
> wrote:
>
+1. Cisco calls them Twinax, HP calls them DACs. I don't know what
anyone else calls them as it hasn't come up in conversation for me.
Cisco appears to offer them in 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, and 5 meter passive,
as well as 7 and 10 meter active. HP has them in 1, 3, 7, 10, and 15
meter; no idea
IIRC, it takes about 13W to maintain a 10GBASET connection. That's a lot of
power to drain from a tiny board that wasn't designed to supply such loads.
~tom
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 1:32:58 PM, Phil Bedard
wrote:
Pluggable SFP+ transceiver. There are plenty of fixed config 10GBase-T
devic
This evening all of my servers lost NTP sync, stating that our on-site NTP
servers hadn't synced in too long.
Reference time noted by the local NTP servers:
Fri, Jan 31 2014 19:11:29.725
Apparently since then, NTP has been unable to traverse the circuit. Our
other provider is shuffling NTP pac
On 2/1/14, 1:18 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Feb 1, 2014, at 4:05 PM, Phil Bedard wrote:
>
>> As for 10GBase-T in a transceiver, I haven't seen that on anyone's
>> roadmap. It will probably come eventually but not for awhile.
>
> It must exist, as there is this:
Nah that's a 10G-base-t pci e
Pluggable SFP+ transceiver. There are plenty of fixed config 10GBase-T
devices out there. Power/space in a SFP+ package just isn't there yet.
Phil
On 2/1/14, 4:18 PM, "Jared Mauch" wrote:
>
>On Feb 1, 2014, at 4:05 PM, Phil Bedard wrote:
>
>> As for 10GBase-T in a transceiver, I haven'
On Feb 1, 2014, at 4:05 PM, Phil Bedard wrote:
> As for 10GBase-T in a transceiver, I haven't seen that on anyone's
> roadmap. It will probably come eventually but not for awhile.
It must exist, as there is this:
http://store.apple.com/us/product/HC294LL/A/atto-thunderlink-nt1102-thunderbolt-
That was the reason for the push to the 10x10 MSA by people like Google
and other providers who did not want to use MM bundles and didn't want to
deal with the expense and power consumption of 100GBase-LR4. LR10
although hasn't really seen much adoption by the vendors, only compatible
optics from
Hey,
If you look in mylevel3.net you will be able to see any interruptions
in Level3's net.
/Peter
2014-01-31 Petter Bruland :
> Are there anyone from Level3 here, who can tell me if there are issues with
> Level3 in Las Vegas area?
>
> We're hosted out of the Switch SuperNAP, and we're having
On Feb 1, 2014, at 8:42 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> While the policy text does not spell out a list of technologies, I believe
> that the clear intent of the community from the discussions and from
> the examples given in the policy text was for minimal IPv4 allocations
> to support the transition p
While the policy text does not spell out a list of technologies, I believe
that the clear intent of the community from the discussions and from
the examples given in the policy text was for minimal IPv4 allocations
to support the transition process. While no ratio is given in the policy
text, I dou
* Owen DeLong
> In answer to Tore's statement, this block does not apply the standard
> justification criteria and I think you would actually be quite hard
> pressed to justify a /24 from this prefix. In most cases, it is
> expected that these would be the IPv4 address pool for the public
> facing
12 matches
Mail list logo
