Hello, Some LRM run on both SM and MM including Cisco's. At $JOB we do use 10G-LRM a lot. It's the predominent transciever because estate standards says "SM EVERYWHERE !@#!", we buy only Cisco brands and LR is 4 times the price of an LRM. It was removed from Nexus compatibility matrix in recent NX-OS release because of overheating issue as far as I was told by our SE.
Regards, On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Mike Hale <eyeronic.des...@gmail.com> wrote: > "No." > > I stand corrected. ;) > > "What's on the opposite side of the 5548s?" > > They are up and running right now on a 3750X and a 2960S. I have a > vague memory of having them in some servers in the past as well, but > I'm not seeing any of those right at this moment. > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Crist J. Clark > <cjc+cisco-...@pumpky.net> wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 03:21:27PM -0700, Mike Hale 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? >> >> No. As someone else already pointed out, Cisco says you can run LRM over >> SMF for 300m, which is actually longer than they say you can run it over >> MMF, 220m. You also don't need mode conditioning over SMF. >> >>> We're using some LRM SFPs between floors to a 5548, and they function >>> just fine. >> >> What's on the opposite side of the 5548s? It may be similar to what we're >> seeing. It looks like this works fine Nexus to Nexus, but it is flaky >> Nexus to Catalyst. >> >>> 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 >> >> -- >> Crist J. Clark > > > > -- > 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/ -- Matthieu MICHAUD _______________________________________________ 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/