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 supports 100G DWDM. We will soon see DWDM CFP available, although the density is going to be at best half what you'd get out of using CFP2/CPAK. I'm intrigued by Oclaro since they say they have already been able to do it in CFP2, and have an implementation to do 200G via a CFP2, albeit via proprietary modulation... DTAG has done a lot of work with various vendors for interoperable long-haul 100G which is important. Unfortunately many of the transport vendors are now focused on other things now like flexgrid, flex spectrum, MacPHY (variable rate Ethernet), superchannels, 400G, etc. It's important they be pointed in the "standards" direction for those things otherwise we will be left with lots of non-interoperable implementations like we have always had. -Phil On 4/26/14, 7:17 AM, "Tim Durack" <tdurack@gmail.com> wrote:
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 <nanog@studio442.com.au> wrote:
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 the ROADM is cheaper. A static split can do the 80 waves in much less than the ~20dB a power split would need, and
ROADMs already solve this problem, and are available at the module
(how practically available and usable I've no idea, never needed to
level try).
Compare the price of a ROADM and a 50%/50% light splitter. Which one
do
you think is the cheapest and also operationally most reliable?
Not disagreeing, I'd go with dumb static optics, nearly all the "reconfigurable" optic selling points don't seem to translate into actual operational benefits.
-- Tim:>