Is there such a thing as a 10GBase-T SFP+ transciever

Phil Bedard bedard.phil at gmail.com
Sat Feb 1 21:05:15 UTC 2014


That was the reason for the push to the 10x10 MSA by people like Google
and other providers who did not want to use MM bundles and didn't want to
deal with the expense and power consumption of 100GBase-LR4.  LR10
although hasn't really seen much adoption by the vendors, only compatible
optics from 3rd party vendors are available now.

40GBase-LR4 QSFP+ aren't really all that expensive these days.  Gray
market they are less than $2500.

Cisco and Arista also just came out with 40G running over a single duplex
MM fiber, 100M over OM3, and I expect the other datacenter vendors to
follow suit shortly.

As for 10GBase-T in a transceiver, I haven't seen that on anyone's
roadmap.  It will probably come eventually but not for awhile.


-Phil






On 1/31/14, 7:39 AM, "Eric Clark" <cabenth at gmail.com> wrote:

>What I want to see is reasonably priced 40G single mode transceivers.
>
>I have no idea why 40G and now 100G wasn't rolled out with single mode as
>the preference. The argument that "there's a large multimode install
>base" doesn't hold water.
>
>For one thing, you're using enormous amounts of MM fiber to get at best
>1/4 of the ports than you previously had.
>The best case is that you could get 12 ports where you used to have 48,
>but that's messy.
>The second issue is cost, if you're running and distance, you've got to
>go to OM4, because MM fiber has very limited range at 10G (you're
>multiplexing 10G links), and OM4 is insanely expensive.
>
>Single Mode on the other hand is 'cheap' in comparison. One pair of SM
>fiber will handle every speed from 10M to 100G, and over much longer
>distances than MM, no matter what grade.
>
>Unfortunately, since the manufacturers haven't seen fit to push the SM,
>the optics are extremely expensive, so we're stuck with 4-12 times the
>amount of installed fiber than we really need.
>
>Grumble.
>
>
>On Jan 30, 2014, at 6:25 PM, Chris Balmain <chris at team.dcsi.net.au> wrote:
>
>> You may wish to consider twinax for short distance 10G over copper with
>>SFP+ at both ends
>> 
>> 
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinaxial_cabling#SFP.2B_Direct-Attach_Coppe
>>r_.2810GSFP.2BCu.29
>> 
>> Typically marketed as "direct-attach" (you can't remove the cables from
>>the transceivers, it's all integrated)
>> 
>> On 31/01/14 12:26, james jones wrote:
>>> I would like to know if anyone has seen one of these? If so where?
>>>Also if
>>> they don't exist why? It would seem to me that it would make it a lot
>>> easier to play mix and match with fiber in the DC if they did. Would
>>>be so
>>> hard to make the 1G SFPs faster (trying to be funny here not arrogant).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -James
>> 
>
>





More information about the NANOG mailing list