Michael Robson wrote:
> The circuit supplier quoted dB values for the links on handover which
> should have meant that most of the links would have been within
> acceptable values: perhaps the 6500-quoted values aren't very accurate?
If you haven't done so, meticulously clean the optics, cables,
On Fri, 1 May 2009 15:05:35 +0100, Michael Robson wrote
> The circuit supplier quoted dB values for the links on handover which
> should have meant that most of the links would have been within
> acceptable values: perhaps the 6500-quoted values aren't very accurate?
Values reported by ZR XENP
Michael
--
Michael Robson | Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 6113
Senior Network Engineer | Fax: +44 (0) 161 275 6120
Net North West | Email: michael.rob...@manchester.ac.uk
On 30 Apr 2009, at 16:08, Dale W. Carder wrote:
On Apr 30, 2009, at 9:37 AM, Michael Robson wrote:
We ha
On Apr 30, 2009, at 9:37 AM, Michael Robson wrote:
We have a selection of ZR modules (XENPAK-10GB-ZR)
For these modules, none of them are transmitting at anything like
their maximum of +4.0dBm (Cisco's figures for the maximum transmit
power), they are in fact transmitting between +1.9dBm a
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 03:37:44PM +0100, Michael Robson wrote:
> We have a selection of ZR modules (XENPAK-10GB-ZR) in 6500s that we
> are using to drive some links at 10Gbps and I have recently noticed
> that all receive values (as reported via the sh int te x/y trans
> command) are lower t
We have a selection of ZR modules (XENPAK-10GB-ZR) in 6500s that we
are using to drive some links at 10Gbps and I have recently noticed
that all receive values (as reported via the sh int te x/y trans
command) are lower than what Cisco specify as the minimum allowed
values for those modules
