Low cost WDM gear

Sat Feb 7 21:25:57 UTC 2015

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 at Snappytelecom.net 

----- Original Message -----

> From: "Kenneth McRae" <kenneth.mcrae at me.com>
> To: "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal at snappytelecom.net>
> Cc: "Rodrigo 1telecom" <rodrigo at 1telecom.com.br>, "NANOG" <nanog at 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 at 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 at Snappytelecom.net
> 

> > ----- Original Message -----
> 

> > > From: "Kenneth McRae" <kenneth.mcrae at me.com>
> > 
> 
> > > To: "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal at snappytelecom.net>
> > 
> 
> > > Cc: "Rodrigo 1telecom" <rodrigo at 1telecom.com.br>, "NANOG"
> > > <nanog at 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 at 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 at 1telecom.com.br >
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > To: "Kenneth McRae" < kenneth.mcrae at me.com >
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > Cc: "NANOG" < nanog at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
>