CWDM question

Keith kwoody at citywest.ca
Fri Dec 13 03:20:25 UTC 2013


That is whats next. They took down the whole fiber instead of just the 1471 wave to test
which killed transit...grrr..

They say their tx/rx are within spec.

Next is jumpers and sfp swaps I guess.

Thanks.
On 12/12/2013 6:40 PM, Sam Roche wrote:
> If you have a CWDM optical power meter and light source, see if you can measure the 
> power level on the receiving end and verify that it is within the spec of the SFP. Maybe 
> it is a bad jumper or port on the 1471 receive on their end or send on your end.
>
> If the two switches can be brought to the same location, you might also want to connect 
> them together using short jumpers, but make sure you have a power meter to ensure you 
> use the proper attenuators to avoid burning out your optics. This would rule out your 
> fiber and mux in case it an issue with an appliance or SFP. I've had CWDM SFPs burn out 
> for no apparent reason twice now.
>
> *From: *Keith
> *Sent: *Thursday, December 12, 2013 8:11 PM
> *To: *nanog at nanog.org
> *Subject: *CWDM question
>
>
> CWDM question
>
> Hi.
>
> We are doing a fiber link between us and another SP using CWDM.
>
> There is traffic flowing just fine at the 1310 wave, and have recently added a
> 1471 wave.
>
> On the 1471 wave there are some problems with it. From our perspective, and we
> have packet captured this, we are transmitting data to them, but they say they
> are not seeing anything. We are receiving from them, and while we show that
> packets are leaving our interface to them, they are getting nothing at all.
>
> There are good light levels between the two locations and do not understand
> why they are not seeing traffic from us even though we are sending it. Our packet
> counters show we are transmitting to them and receiving from them.
>
> Is it possible to have RX and TX light and things appear to be ok, but have the
> RX on their side fubar in some way that it is not operating correctly in that our
> traffic is not reaching them?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>




More information about the NANOG mailing list