On Sun, 7 Sep 2008, Bradley Urberg-Carlson, VISI wrote:
>I've wondered if one could shoot with DWDM 10G optics into two channels
>of a CWDM mux. For example, by connecting DWDM channel 359 (center
>1530.33 nm) and 334 (center 1550.12 nm) to the 1530/1550 filters of a
>CWDM mux wit
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008, Robert Boyle wrote:
> At 12:03 AM 8/31/2008, you wrote:
> >Currently it is my understanding the 10 Gbps signals are carried on
> >4 x 2.5 Gbps signals that are compatible with existing CWDM and DWDM
> >equipment. There are 40 Gbps DWDM systems and 10 Gbps lasers on 100
> >Gb
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008, Nitzan Tzelniker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Look here
>
> http://www.btisystems.com/news/releases/Goldfield_Telecom.php
These are XFP-based. Thus, not a solution to the problem above.
Answer: Nobody's making 10GE CWDM-wavelength lasers. Why? I don't have
enough knowledge of optical
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008, Brian Dickson wrote:
> However, if *AS-path* filtering is done based on IRR data, specifically
> on the as-sets of customers and customers' customers etc., then the
> attack *can* be prevented.
>
> The as-path prepending depends on upstreams and their peers accepting
> the pr
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008, Anton Kapela wrote:
> I thought I'd toss in a few comments, considering it's my fault that
> few people are understanding this thing yet.
>
> >> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Gadi Evron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> People (especially spammers) have been hijacking
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, John Lee wrote:
> In your talk, I agree that the CAN with your CWDM is not that expensive
> but you also mention that the tighter DWDM with long haul optics is
> expensive ie "Everybody knows how to do (active) xWDM by giving a lot of
> money to (insert vendor of choice]:"
>
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, John Lee wrote:
> Subscribe to Lightwave (at no charge) and look at the back issues for
> networks. Show up at Supercom or OFC or what is replacing them and get the
> latest on ROADM, full channel tunable lasers and maintenance costs.
>
> What size of network do you want t
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Jeff Shultz wrote:
> Mike Lieman wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Kevin Oberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:06:48 -0400
> >> > From: "Mike Lieman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Scott Francis <[EM
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Megaera wrote:
> I was wondering what was going on myself. I've been a member of the list
> for years now (non-posting) and this afternoon I get a notice that I've
> subscribed to NANOG followed by two quick virus notices - and my list
> settings had been dumped too.
Yes, ther
[please note - followups are set to nanog-futures, this doesn't belong to
nanog-list. respect the reply-to header and reply to nanog-futures ]
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Deepak Jain wrote:
> However, a tremendous amount of time is wasted just by discussing these
> sorts of "small" problems. Plenty of
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
> Vegetable oil can degrade much faster than diesel.
>
> What you really want is a large pond at the top of a hill, and another
> large pond at the bottom of the same hill.
>
> When utility prices are low, pump the water to the upper pond. When
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
