I'm a big fan of the Terastream setup and have done a lot of research into
it, it makes sense if the density and bandwidth needs are fairly low and
the distances not so great. Terastream also makes use of a LOT of raw
fiber which most do not really have access to. Right now only one router
vendor
Will need amplification anyway for almost any realistic topology.
For those who don't understand what or why, please read the Terastream PDF
and watch the video several times, then tell me it's not a great idea :-)
On Saturday, April 26, 2014, Julien Goodwin wrote:
> On 26/04/14 16:02, Mikael A
On 26/04/14 16:02, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2014, Julien Goodwin wrote:
>
>> But you'd never send it all the waves anyway, that's far too much loss
>> across the band.
>
> Please elaborate.
At 3dB loss per split you'd very quickly need additional amplification,
at which point t
On Sat, 26 Apr 2014, Julien Goodwin wrote:
But you'd never send it all the waves anyway, that's far too much loss
across the band.
Please elaborate.
ROADMs already solve this problem, and are available at the module level
(how practically available and usable I've no idea, never needed to tr
On 26/04/14 14:00, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014, Phil Bedard wrote:
>
>> What are you trying to do? Why do you need the receive side to be tuned
>> to a specific narrowband wavelength?
>
> Because he doesn't want to use filters. A coherent receiver s like a FM
> radio, you can
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014, Phil Bedard wrote:
What are you trying to do? Why do you need the receive side to be tuned
to a specific narrowband wavelength?
Because he doesn't want to use filters. A coherent receiver s like a FM
radio, you can tune what it listens so. So if you send it all waves the
and transponder. You
> "tune" the wavelength on the router because of the 1:1 correlation.
> Terastream just uses passive DWDM muxes/demuxes, also part of the same
> Cisco transport solution, and Cisco VOAs/amps.
>
> -Phil
>
>
>
> On 4/25/14, 2:59 PM, "Tim Du
, and Cisco VOAs/amps.
-Phil
On 4/25/14, 2:59 PM, "Tim Durack" wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Tim Durack wrote:
>
>> Anyone know if pluggable coherent DWDM 10Gig optics exist? (I'm finding
>>no
>> such thing.)
>>
>> How about na
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Tim Durack wrote:
> Anyone know if pluggable coherent DWDM 10Gig optics exist? (I'm finding no
> such thing.)
>
> How about narrow-band/filtered receive 10Gig optics? (Inline FBG filter
> receive side might be doable?)
>
> --
> Tim:&g
k wrote:
>
> Anyone know if pluggable coherent DWDM 10Gig optics exist? (I'm finding no
> such thing.)
>
> How about narrow-band/filtered receive 10Gig optics? (Inline FBG filter
> receive side might be doable?)
>
> --
> Tim:>
>
> p.s. Before you ask, DTAG Terastream has got me thinking...
--
Tim:>
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Tim Durack wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Tim Durack wrote:
>
>> Anyone know if pluggable coherent DWDM 10Gig optics exist? (I'm finding
>> no such thing.)
>>
>> How about narrow-band/filtered receive 10Gig optics?
ps://ripe67.ripe.net/presentations/131-ripe2-2.pdf
>
> (I'll take 100Gig once I can get the optics for less than the cost of a
> v.nice sports car...)
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Tim Durack wrote:
>
>> Anyone know if pluggable coherent DWDM 10Gig
know if pluggable coherent DWDM 10Gig optics exist? (I'm finding no
> such thing.)
>
> How about narrow-band/filtered receive 10Gig optics? (Inline FBG filter
> receive side might be doable?)
>
> --
> Tim:>
>
> p.s. Before you ask, DTAG Terastream has got me thinking...
>
--
Tim:>
Anyone know if pluggable coherent DWDM 10Gig optics exist? (I'm finding no
such thing.)
How about narrow-band/filtered receive 10Gig optics? (Inline FBG filter
receive side might be doable?)
--
Tim:>
p.s. Before you ask, DTAG Terastream has got me thinking...
14 matches
Mail list logo
