The SFP-10G-LR are designed for SMF. On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Mike Hale <eyeronic.des...@gmail.com> wrote: > Correct me if I'm wrong, but the LRM SFPs are designed to go over MMF, > not SMF. Isn't that going to be a problem? > > We're using some LRM SFPs between floors to a 5548, and they function > just fine. > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Crist J. Clark > <cjc+cisco-...@pumpky.net> wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:45:58PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: >>> On 14/09/2015 22:39, Crist J. Clark wrote: >>> > We are running all of this over SMF. >>> >>> why are you using LRM transceivers then? >> >> I am not exactly sure of the design decisions behind the choice to use LRM >> over >> SMF to orginally connect the distro to the core when the campus was built. >> But >> given that it was working, and we already had almost enough spare LRMs on >> hand >> to complete the project, It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time. >> >> We also have OM3 MMF between the buildings so replacing this all with SR is >> the main plan right now, but whatever the problem is with the LRM modules >> looks more like software/firmware than a problem with the fiber paths (the >> links >> always do eventually come up with good light readings and no errors), and we >> were just curious if anyone had seen this issue with 5ks and LRM before and >> found a way to deal with it. >> -- >> Crist J. Clark >> _______________________________________________ >> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp >> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > > > > -- > 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
-- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/