North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: POS OC48 interfaces using different wave length
- From: Barton F Bruce
- Date: Fri Jun 08 21:45:36 2001
You can do that. The issue really is whether the receivers are going to
accept signals in the other band and you will find that they will.
You can also do el-cheapo CWDM (CoarseWDM) using inexpensive filters so you
can run a 1310 and a 1550 at one end to their respective pair-mates at the
to get 2 seperate signals on the same fibers without full-blown and
expensive DWDM gear. One color could be POS and the other GIG-E, if that is
A filter to split 1310 from 1550 is inexpensive campared to ITU grid
spacing. Nothing labeled xWDM needed except perhaps the simple filters you
need at each end.
In a closer to each other color wise but still mismatched situation, if you
happen to be using cisco's 15454 family (Cerent) ITU grid OC-48 cards not
for their different colors, but for their much higher power than the plain
LR card, any two different colors cards you happen to have on hand will play
fine to each other - just don't put any filters inbetween.
Also note that some of cisco's published GBIC configurations include cross
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vincent Gillet" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 9:39 AM
Subject: POS OC48 interfaces using different wave length
> Hello all,
> I am thinking about using different POS interfaces on dark-fibers.
> On one side, i already have POS-OC48-LR card (Cisco).
> This card use 1550 nm wave length.
> We would like to use a POS-OC48-SR (Cisco).
> This card use 1310 nm wave length.
> Are 1310 and 1550 optics comptatible ?
> If yes, i guess that there is impact on the power Budget available.
> Some colleagues reported successful implementation with such config (Cisco
> POS OC48 Cards)
> It looks strange to me and i wonder if Juniper and Cisco POS OC48 would
> also work corretly in such environnement ...
> I guess that "official" answer from manufacturer would be : NO WAY :-)
> Some carriers may already tested such config ? Any feedback ?