North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: High Density Multimode Runs BCP?
- From: Scott McGrath
- Date: Wed Jan 26 13:50:41 2005
Look into MPO cabling
MPO uses fiber ribbon cables the most common of which is 6x2
six strands by two layers
Panduit has several solutions which use cartridges so you get a
cartridge with your desired termination type and run the MPO cable between
This cabling under another name is also used for IBM Mainframe channel
Scott C. McGrath
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Deepak Jain wrote:
> I have a situation where I want to run Nx24 pairs of GE across a
> datacenter to several different customers. Runs are about 200meters max.
> When running say 24-pairs of multi-mode across a datacenter, I have
> considered a few solutions, but am not sure what is common/best practice.
> a) Find/adapt a 24/48 thread inside-plant cable (either multimode, or
> condition single mode) and connectorize the ends. Adv: Clean, Single,
> high density cable runs, Dis: Not sure if such a beast exists in
> multimode, and the whole cable has to be replaced/made redundant if one
> fiber dies and you need a critical restore, may need a break out shelf.
> b) Run 24 duplex MM cables of the proper lengths. Adv: Easy to trace,
> color code, understand. Easy to replace/repair one cable should
> something untoward occur. Can buy/stock pre-terminated cables of the
> proper length for easy restore. Dis: Lots of cables, more riser space.
> c) ??
> So... is there an option C? Does a multimode beastie like A exist
> commonly? Is it generally more cost effective to terminate your own MM
> cables or buy them pre-terminated?
> Assume that each of these pairs is going to be used for something like
> 1000B-SX full duplex, and that these are all aggregated trunk links so
> you can't take a single pair of 1000B-SX and break it out to 24xGE at
> the end points with a switch.
> I priced up one of these runs at 100m, and I was seeing a list price in
> the ballpark of $2500-$3000 plenum. So I figured it was worth asking if
> there is a better way when we're talking about N times that number. :)
> Thanks in advance, I'm sure I just haven't had enough caffeine today.