February 2015 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Checkpoint IPS
by Michael Hallgren 08 Feb '15

08 Feb '15

Hi, Someone has positive or negative experience running Checkpoint IPS cluster over ``long distance'' synch. network? Real life limitations? Alternatives? Timers? Cheers, mh

18 54

suny.edu / ASN54226 anyone? please contact me off-list
by BPNoC Group 08 Feb '15

08 Feb '15

Someone from Sunynet? Please contact-me off list to clarify if you are BGP transit to to a certain ASN spoofing my CIDR or if bgp as-path is artificially messed. Tried contact on sunny(a)suny.edu w/o success.

1 0

scaling linux-based router hardware recommendations
by micah anderson 07 Feb '15

07 Feb '15

Hi, I know that specially programmed ASICs on dedicated hardware like Cisco, Juniper, etc. are going to always outperform a general purpose server running gnu/linux, *bsd... but I find the idea of trying to use proprietary, NSA-backdoored devices difficult to accept, especially when I don't have the budget for it. I've noticed that even with a relatively modern system (supermicro with a 4 core 1265LV2 CPU, with a 9MB cache, Intel E1G44HTBLK Server adapters, and 16gig of ram, you still tend to get high percentage of time working on softirqs on all the CPUs when pps reaches somewhere around 60-70k, and the traffic approaching 600-900mbit/sec (during a DDoS, such hardware cannot typically cope). It seems like finding hardware more optimized for very high packet per second counts would be a good thing to do. I just have no idea what is out there that could meet these goals. I'm unsure if faster CPUs, or more CPUs is really the problem, or networking cards, or just plain old fashioned tuning. Any ideas or suggestions would be welcome! micah

34 46

Metaswitch ax1000 as a RR
by David Bass 07 Feb '15

07 Feb '15

I have a client looking to implement x86 based route reflectors, and was looking at the ax1000. I'm wondering if anyone has implemented it yet, and what your experience has been? Any other alternatives would also be appreciated. This customer does standard L3 VPNs, and VPLS services so the software has to support that. Thanks!

5 6

Low cost WDM gear
by Mike Hammett 07 Feb '15

07 Feb '15

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

3 3

Re: Low cost WDM gear
by Kenneth McRae 07 Feb '15

07 Feb '15

All the more reason to bring in engineering with accurate data when engaging with customers. I kinda figured that FiberStore was a broker when I was told that all technical support issues had to be directed through the sale rep. On Feb 07, 2015, at 01:26 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal(a)snappytelecom.net> wrote: BTW, I hope you realize that FiberStore is not a mfg. but a "Seller/broker". they have to rely on the specs provided to them from the MFG. In the Far East, mfg, distribution, sales is organized is a slightly different manner than the West. :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support(a)Snappytelecom.net From: "Kenneth McRae" <kenneth.mcrae(a)me.com> To: "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal(a)snappytelecom.net> Cc: "Rodrigo 1telecom" <rodrigo(a)1telecom.com.br>, "NANOG" <nanog(a)nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2015 4:01:29 PM Subject: Re: Low cost WDM gear That's true up to a point. Specs are only as good as the entity providing the data. I can tell you a few stories about specs and some MAJOR fails by a major network equipment manufacturer failing to meet advertised specs. When you engage the engineering folks to assist in a build, they should know the true specs of their gear better than anyone else. If they say for a certain distance that A+B will work, then that is exactly what I expect. That is pretty basic. On Feb 07, 2015, at 12:56 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal(a)snappytelecom.net> wrote: More power to you .... I always get a chuckle out of statements such as ... "Compared FiberStore to another Vendor"... It was pointed out to me long time ago.... when someone said.. "My Chevy is better than a Ford".... Someone pointed out, hey, which Chevy ? the Chevette ? or the Corvette ? and Which Ford the Fiesta or Mustang ? Every mfg. has a lots and lots of products, and they are always getting improved... One has to pay attention to the specs.. even the same model products at different times don't have the same specs ! :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support(a)Snappytelecom.net From: "Kenneth McRae" <kenneth.mcrae(a)me.com> To: "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal(a)snappytelecom.net> Cc: "Rodrigo 1telecom" <rodrigo(a)1telecom.com.br>, "NANOG" <nanog(a)nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2015 3:49:16 PM Subject: Re: Low cost WDM gear That's why I engage the engineering resources on their end to make sure the chosen candidate will support the use case. I have now performed an A/B comparison and the FiberStore gear is inferior. Excessive loss on the mux and optics. On Feb 07, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal(a)snappytelecom.net> wrote: If you pay close attention to the Spec Sheets, on power output, insertion loss, sensitivity, and do the proper calculation for your link, then using anyone's products, passive or active will work unless the devices do not meet specified specs. If you don't do your homework, cals on the design, loss, and just buy stuff based on whatever, then it does not matter who the mfg. is, you are very very likely to be surprised in a bad way. :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rodrigo 1telecom" <rodrigo(a)1telecom.com.br> To: "Kenneth McRae" <kenneth.mcrae(a)me.com> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog(a)nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2015 3:24:43 PM Subject: Re: Low cost WDM gear What others vendors do you using? Here in Brazil only PADTEC have this passive solution... Some days ago Digitel contact me to show your multiplex solution... Is a active solution... We import this from fiberstore, but i don't know others vendors to buy 10G sfp+ cwdm and this mux/demux... Enviado via iPhone  Grupo Connectoway > Em 07/02/2015, às 16:04, Kenneth McRae <kenneth.mcrae(a)me.com> escreveu: > > 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 <rodrigo(a)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.mcrae(a)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 <mmg(a)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 <nanog(a)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.

1 0

Re: Low cost WDM gear
by Kenneth McRae 07 Feb '15

07 Feb '15

Point taken on the specs.. Still doesn't excuse poor customer service and tech support. I never expect to be told that no refund will be issued when I am dissatisfied with the product. A request for RMA because something is not working as expected should not have to be escalated to the President of the company. Other than that I am sure FiberStore is a great company :-) On Feb 07, 2015, at 01:17 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal(a)snappytelecom.net> wrote: My point is...... ... The thing to rely on is/are the Specs. If the Specs are right or specs are wrong, that is what determines the product's mfg shortcoming (defect). Mfg. Engineers are people, just like you and me.... and people can make mistakes... Being an Engineer, when I ask someone to do the design work, I ask them to explain it, and this way I double check their work.... Yes Mfg. Engineers are known to F***up too. While it is expected to be disappointed when something does not work.. and having a bad taste for dealing with that mfg, claiming that all of that mfg products are bad is a whole different issue. I deal with FiberStore, my experience have been very different, when stuff purchased from them, did not meet the specs, they took it back no questions asked. Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support(a)Snappytelecom.net From: "Kenneth McRae" <kenneth.mcrae(a)me.com> To: "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal(a)snappytelecom.net> Cc: "Rodrigo 1telecom" <rodrigo(a)1telecom.com.br>, "NANOG" <nanog(a)nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2015 4:01:29 PM Subject: Re: Low cost WDM gear That's true up to a point. Specs are only as good as the entity providing the data. I can tell you a few stories about specs and some MAJOR fails by a major network equipment manufacturer failing to meet advertised specs. When you engage the engineering folks to assist in a build, they should know the true specs of their gear better than anyone else. If they say for a certain distance that A+B will work, then that is exactly what I expect. That is pretty basic. On Feb 07, 2015, at 12:56 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal(a)snappytelecom.net> wrote: More power to you .... I always get a chuckle out of statements such as ... "Compared FiberStore to another Vendor"... It was pointed out to me long time ago.... when someone said.. "My Chevy is better than a Ford".... Someone pointed out, hey, which Chevy ? the Chevette ? or the Corvette ? and Which Ford the Fiesta or Mustang ? Every mfg. has a lots and lots of products, and they are always getting improved... One has to pay attention to the specs.. even the same model products at different times don't have the same specs ! :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support(a)Snappytelecom.net From: "Kenneth McRae" <kenneth.mcrae(a)me.com> To: "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal(a)snappytelecom.net> Cc: "Rodrigo 1telecom" <rodrigo(a)1telecom.com.br>, "NANOG" <nanog(a)nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2015 3:49:16 PM Subject: Re: Low cost WDM gear That's why I engage the engineering resources on their end to make sure the chosen candidate will support the use case. I have now performed an A/B comparison and the FiberStore gear is inferior. Excessive loss on the mux and optics. On Feb 07, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal(a)snappytelecom.net> wrote: If you pay close attention to the Spec Sheets, on power output, insertion loss, sensitivity, and do the proper calculation for your link, then using anyone's products, passive or active will work unless the devices do not meet specified specs. If you don't do your homework, cals on the design, loss, and just buy stuff based on whatever, then it does not matter who the mfg. is, you are very very likely to be surprised in a bad way. :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rodrigo 1telecom" <rodrigo(a)1telecom.com.br> To: "Kenneth McRae" <kenneth.mcrae(a)me.com> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog(a)nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2015 3:24:43 PM Subject: Re: Low cost WDM gear What others vendors do you using? Here in Brazil only PADTEC have this passive solution... Some days ago Digitel contact me to show your multiplex solution... Is a active solution... We import this from fiberstore, but i don't know others vendors to buy 10G sfp+ cwdm and this mux/demux... Enviado via iPhone  Grupo Connectoway > Em 07/02/2015, às 16:04, Kenneth McRae <kenneth.mcrae(a)me.com> escreveu: > > 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 <rodrigo(a)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.mcrae(a)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 <mmg(a)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 <nanog(a)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.

2 1

Re: Low cost WDM gear
by Kenneth McRae 07 Feb '15

07 Feb '15

That's true up to a point. Specs are only as good as the entity providing the data. I can tell you a few stories about specs and some MAJOR fails by a major network equipment manufacturer failing to meet advertised specs. When you engage the engineering folks to assist in a build, they should know the true specs of their gear better than anyone else. If they say for a certain distance that A+B will work, then that is exactly what I expect. That is pretty basic. On Feb 07, 2015, at 12:56 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal(a)snappytelecom.net> wrote: More power to you .... I always get a chuckle out of statements such as ... "Compared FiberStore to another Vendor"... It was pointed out to me long time ago.... when someone said.. "My Chevy is better than a Ford".... Someone pointed out, hey, which Chevy ? the Chevette ? or the Corvette ? and Which Ford the Fiesta or Mustang ? Every mfg. has a lots and lots of products, and they are always getting improved... One has to pay attention to the specs.. even the same model products at different times don't have the same specs ! :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support(a)Snappytelecom.net From: "Kenneth McRae" <kenneth.mcrae(a)me.com> To: "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal(a)snappytelecom.net> Cc: "Rodrigo 1telecom" <rodrigo(a)1telecom.com.br>, "NANOG" <nanog(a)nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2015 3:49:16 PM Subject: Re: Low cost WDM gear That's why I engage the engineering resources on their end to make sure the chosen candidate will support the use case. I have now performed an A/B comparison and the FiberStore gear is inferior. Excessive loss on the mux and optics. On Feb 07, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal(a)snappytelecom.net> wrote: If you pay close attention to the Spec Sheets, on power output, insertion loss, sensitivity, and do the proper calculation for your link, then using anyone's products, passive or active will work unless the devices do not meet specified specs. If you don't do your homework, cals on the design, loss, and just buy stuff based on whatever, then it does not matter who the mfg. is, you are very very likely to be surprised in a bad way. :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rodrigo 1telecom" <rodrigo(a)1telecom.com.br> To: "Kenneth McRae" <kenneth.mcrae(a)me.com> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog(a)nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2015 3:24:43 PM Subject: Re: Low cost WDM gear What others vendors do you using? Here in Brazil only PADTEC have this passive solution... Some days ago Digitel contact me to show your multiplex solution... Is a active solution... We import this from fiberstore, but i don't know others vendors to buy 10G sfp+ cwdm and this mux/demux... Enviado via iPhone  Grupo Connectoway > Em 07/02/2015, às 16:04, Kenneth McRae <kenneth.mcrae(a)me.com> escreveu: > > 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 <rodrigo(a)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.mcrae(a)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 <mmg(a)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 <nanog(a)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.

2 2

Re: Low cost WDM gear
by Kenneth McRae 07 Feb '15

07 Feb '15

That's why I engage the engineering resources on their end to make sure the chosen candidate will support the use case. I have now performed an A/B comparison and the FiberStore gear is inferior. Excessive loss on the mux and optics. On Feb 07, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal(a)snappytelecom.net> wrote: If you pay close attention to the Spec Sheets, on power output, insertion loss, sensitivity, and do the proper calculation for your link, then using anyone's products, passive or active will work unless the devices do not meet specified specs. If you don't do your homework, cals on the design, loss, and just buy stuff based on whatever, then it does not matter who the mfg. is, you are very very likely to be surprised in a bad way. :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rodrigo 1telecom" <rodrigo(a)1telecom.com.br> To: "Kenneth McRae" <kenneth.mcrae(a)me.com> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog(a)nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2015 3:24:43 PM Subject: Re: Low cost WDM gear What others vendors do you using? Here in Brazil only PADTEC have this passive solution... Some days ago Digitel contact me to show your multiplex solution... Is a active solution... We import this from fiberstore, but i don't know others vendors to buy 10G sfp+ cwdm and this mux/demux... Enviado via iPhone  Grupo Connectoway > Em 07/02/2015, às 16:04, Kenneth McRae <kenneth.mcrae(a)me.com> escreveu: > > 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 <rodrigo(a)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.mcrae(a)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 <mmg(a)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 <nanog(a)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.

3 3

Re: Low cost WDM gear
by Kenneth McRae 07 Feb '15

07 Feb '15

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 <rodrigo(a)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.mcrae(a)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 <mmg(a)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 <nanog(a)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.

4 4