Mailing List Archive

No Link between SFP-10G-LRM and X2-10GB-LX4?
Greetings,

I have a 6509 with an X6716-10GE Card equipped with Cisco X2-10GB-LX4 10GE
modules and a Cisco 2960S-48TD-L Switch with two Cisco SFP-10G-LRM
modules.

Right now I am not able to get an active link between these X2 and SFP
modules, it stays down/down (notconnected). I instantly get a link when
connecting X2 to X2 or SFP+ to SFP+ Module. I tried nonegotiate but this
didn't help.. The 6509 runs IOS 12.2(33)SXI7, the 2960 IOS 12.2(55)SE3.
Cisco says these modules are compatible to each other..

Has anyone seen this before? Any hints or ideas?

Thanks,
Holger

_______________________________________________
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/
Re: No Link between SFP-10G-LRM and X2-10GB-LX4? [ In reply to ]
Hi,

On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 07:40:30PM +0200, cisco@entrap.de wrote:
> I have a 6509 with an X6716-10GE Card equipped with Cisco X2-10GB-LX4 10GE
> modules and a Cisco 2960S-48TD-L Switch with two Cisco SFP-10G-LRM
> modules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Gigabit_Ethernet#10GBASE-LX4

and no...

> Cisco says these modules are compatible to each other..

... LRM and LX4 are not compatible.

gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany gert@greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025 gert@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
Re: No Link between SFP-10G-LRM and X2-10GB-LX4? [ In reply to ]
are you sure that its supported?
lx4 == wwdm optic == 4x2.5gbps channels using wideband muxing.

additionally, when looking at datasheets for x2 and sfp+ modules, one
will see that lx4 optic mentions 4 lanes, launching in the 1300nm
space and a separate pluggable for x2-10gb-lrm.
sfp+ only mentions single lane in 1310nm space.

i dont believe the two are compatible. would suggest looking at
x2-10gb-lrm= for compatibility.

regards,
q.

-= sent via ipad. please excuse brevity, spelling, and grammar =-

On Oct 5, 2011, at 11:21, "cisco@entrap.de" <cisco@entrap.de> wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> I have a 6509 with an X6716-10GE Card equipped with Cisco X2-10GB-LX4 10GE
> modules and a Cisco 2960S-48TD-L Switch with two Cisco SFP-10G-LRM
> modules.
>
> Right now I am not able to get an active link between these X2 and SFP
> modules, it stays down/down (notconnected). I instantly get a link when
> connecting X2 to X2 or SFP+ to SFP+ Module. I tried nonegotiate but this
> didn't help.. The 6509 runs IOS 12.2(33)SXI7, the 2960 IOS 12.2(55)SE3.
> Cisco says these modules are compatible to each other..
>
> Has anyone seen this before? Any hints or ideas?
>
> Thanks,
> Holger
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
_______________________________________________
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/
Re: No Link between SFP-10G-LRM and X2-10GB-LX4? [ In reply to ]
I believe LX4 uses multiple wavelengths. This seems to confirm it. I don't
think you can mix those with anything else.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/modules/ps5455/ps6574/product_dat
a_sheet0900aecd801f92aa.html


Thanks,

Chuck


-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of cisco@entrap.de
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 1:41 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] No Link between SFP-10G-LRM and X2-10GB-LX4?

Greetings,

I have a 6509 with an X6716-10GE Card equipped with Cisco X2-10GB-LX4 10GE
modules and a Cisco 2960S-48TD-L Switch with two Cisco SFP-10G-LRM
modules.

Right now I am not able to get an active link between these X2 and SFP
modules, it stays down/down (notconnected). I instantly get a link when
connecting X2 to X2 or SFP+ to SFP+ Module. I tried nonegotiate but this
didn't help.. The 6509 runs IOS 12.2(33)SXI7, the 2960 IOS 12.2(55)SE3.
Cisco says these modules are compatible to each other..

Has anyone seen this before? Any hints or ideas?

Thanks,
Holger

_______________________________________________
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/

_______________________________________________
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/
Re: No Link between SFP-10G-LRM and X2-10GB-LX4? [ In reply to ]
Hello,

Really does it say to be incompatible? Since LX4 is longwave paralel
solution (similar to WDM) and LRM is longwave serial solution.

-pavel

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 7:40 PM, <cisco@entrap.de> wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> I have a 6509 with an X6716-10GE Card equipped with Cisco X2-10GB-LX4 10GE
> modules and a Cisco 2960S-48TD-L Switch with two Cisco SFP-10G-LRM
> modules.
>
> Right now I am not able to get an active link between these X2 and SFP
> modules, it stays down/down (notconnected). I instantly get a link when
> connecting X2 to X2 or SFP+ to SFP+ Module. I tried nonegotiate but this
> didn't help.. The 6509 runs IOS 12.2(33)SXI7, the 2960 IOS 12.2(55)SE3.
> Cisco says these modules are compatible to each other..
>
> Has anyone seen this before? Any hints or ideas?
>
> Thanks,
> Holger
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
_______________________________________________
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/
No Link between SFP-10G-LRM and X2-10GB-LX4? [ In reply to ]
>   1. No Link between SFP-10G-LRM and X2-10GB-LX4? (cisco@entrap.de)


The LX4 uses 4 lights and is only compatible with itself.
We bought a handful to hook 6500s together and then found they don't
make SFP+ versions and had to rebuy when we added 7K/5K to the links.

They sure looked cheaper at the beginning.

_______________________________________________
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/
Re: No Link between SFP-10G-LRM and X2-10GB-LX4? [ In reply to ]
Additionally depending on code version those (LRM and/or LX4) may not be supported on the 6509.
Much better to stick to standard transceivers (SR, LR, ER, ZR or DWDM).

Mack

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 12:27 PM
To: cisco@entrap.de
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] No Link between SFP-10G-LRM and X2-10GB-LX4?

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 07:40:30PM +0200, cisco@entrap.de wrote:
> I have a 6509 with an X6716-10GE Card equipped with Cisco X2-10GB-LX4
> 10GE modules and a Cisco 2960S-48TD-L Switch with two Cisco
> SFP-10G-LRM modules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Gigabit_Ethernet#10GBASE-LX4

and no...

> Cisco says these modules are compatible to each other..

... LRM and LX4 are not compatible.

gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany gert@greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025 gert@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de

_______________________________________________
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/
Re: No Link between SFP-10G-LRM and X2-10GB-LX4? [ In reply to ]
On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 10:19 -0700, Mack McBride wrote:
> Additionally depending on code version those (LRM and/or LX4) may not be supported on the 6509.
> Much better to stick to standard transceivers (SR, LR, ER, ZR or DWDM).

That's easier said than done; if you need 10 Gbps but you only have old
MMF available, your only choices for >30 meters are LX4 and LRM.

Maybe these are corner cases, but sometimes it's just not possible to
stick to the "standard transceivers" you list :)


Regards,

Jeroen van Ingen
ICT Service Centre
University of Twente, P.O.Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands


_______________________________________________
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/
Re: No Link between SFP-10G-LRM and X2-10GB-LX4? [ In reply to ]
> > Much better to stick to standard transceivers (SR, LR, ER, ZR or DWDM).
>
> That's easier said than done; if you need 10 Gbps but you only have old
> MMF available, your only choices for >30 meters are LX4 and LRM.

As we get to capacities higher than 10 Gbps you should not expect old
MMF to be usable...

SMF is well worth the extra expense, IMHO.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
_______________________________________________
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/
Re: No Link between SFP-10G-LRM and X2-10GB-LX4? [ In reply to ]
On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 10:51 +0200, sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:
> > > Much better to stick to standard transceivers (SR, LR, ER, ZR or DWDM).
> >
> > That's easier said than done; if you need 10 Gbps but you only have old
> > MMF available, your only choices for >30 meters are LX4 and LRM.
>
> As we get to capacities higher than 10 Gbps you should not expect old
> MMF to be usable...
>
> SMF is well worth the extra expense, IMHO.

I agree, but again, I was talking about corner cases :)

We're in the process of an upgrade where we need 10 Gbps but can't
replace the existing FDDI-grade MMF: all links to the dorms on our
Campus were installed in the early '90s, when (afaik) SMF wasn't common
yet for distances < 500m, nor were ducts & blown fiber. We have the
budget to use LRM transceivers but not to dig up the cables and put SMF
in the ground.

The 10 Gbps LRM links we're now putting in will probably suffice for the
next 5 - 10 years; perhaps then replacing the fibers will be an option,
or if we're lucky, there may be other digging activities in the mean
time that we can take advantage of...

Of course, now SMF is the standard for us, even for short distances. But
sometimes you have to cope with the limitations imposed by history ;)


Regards,

Jeroen van Ingen
ICT Service Centre
University of Twente, P.O.Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands


_______________________________________________
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/
Re: No Link between SFP-10G-LRM and X2-10GB-LX4? [ In reply to ]
cisco@entrap.de wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I have a 6509 with an X6716-10GE Card equipped with Cisco X2-10GB-LX4 10GE
> modules and a Cisco 2960S-48TD-L Switch with two Cisco SFP-10G-LRM
> modules.

LX4 and LRM are not compatible. LRM uses a single 1310nm laser,
LX4 uses four lasers around 1310nm and wdm optics.

>
> Right now I am not able to get an active link between these X2 and SFP
> modules, it stays down/down (notconnected). I instantly get a link when
> connecting X2 to X2 or SFP+ to SFP+ Module. I tried nonegotiate but this
> didn't help.. The 6509 runs IOS 12.2(33)SXI7, the 2960 IOS 12.2(55)SE3.
> Cisco says these modules are compatible to each other..
>
> Has anyone seen this before? Any hints or ideas?

Use 10GBase-LR and SMF whenever possible, even for short distances.
It works great, It's what "everyone" uses so parts are cheap and
plentiful, and you have a single type of optics and cables for sparing.

- Kevin
_______________________________________________
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/
Re: No Link between SFP-10G-LRM and X2-10GB-LX4? [ In reply to ]
That older fiber is probably not rated at 500 Mhz Modal BW suggested by Cisco.
Older fiber is usually 200 Mhz.
The LX4 would be a better choice (more dispersion resistant) and max distance of 300M.
Your distance limitation is probably going to be much less than the rated value
if the dispersion characteristics of the fiber don't meet the spec.
Of course you will still get connectivity but you will increment errors.
For dorms it probably doesn't matter much. If the streaming music and video is effected
by errors it will probably save you money since the students won't stream as much.

Mack

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jeroen van Ingen
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 4:49 AM
To: sthaug@nethelp.no
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] No Link between SFP-10G-LRM and X2-10GB-LX4?

On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 10:51 +0200, sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:
> > > Much better to stick to standard transceivers (SR, LR, ER, ZR or DWDM).
> >
> > That's easier said than done; if you need 10 Gbps but you only have old
> > MMF available, your only choices for >30 meters are LX4 and LRM.
>
> As we get to capacities higher than 10 Gbps you should not expect old
> MMF to be usable...
>
> SMF is well worth the extra expense, IMHO.

I agree, but again, I was talking about corner cases :)

We're in the process of an upgrade where we need 10 Gbps but can't
replace the existing FDDI-grade MMF: all links to the dorms on our
Campus were installed in the early '90s, when (afaik) SMF wasn't common
yet for distances < 500m, nor were ducts & blown fiber. We have the
budget to use LRM transceivers but not to dig up the cables and put SMF
in the ground.

The 10 Gbps LRM links we're now putting in will probably suffice for the
next 5 - 10 years; perhaps then replacing the fibers will be an option,
or if we're lucky, there may be other digging activities in the mean
time that we can take advantage of...

Of course, now SMF is the standard for us, even for short distances. But
sometimes you have to cope with the limitations imposed by history ;)


Regards,

Jeroen van Ingen
ICT Service Centre
University of Twente, P.O.Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands


_______________________________________________
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/

_______________________________________________
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/
Re: No Link between SFP-10G-LRM and X2-10GB-LX4? [ In reply to ]
On 10/10/2011, at 6:00 PM, Mack McBride wrote:

> That older fiber is probably not rated at 500 Mhz Modal BW suggested by Cisco.
> Older fiber is usually 200 Mhz.
> The LX4 would be a better choice (more dispersion resistant) and max distance of 300M.

I thought that the OP required an SFP+ on one side which means we will need to use LRM.
IIRC LX4 is only available in X2/ Xenpak due to the size/ 4 lasers.


Regards

Andrew
_______________________________________________
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/
Re: No Link between SFP-10G-LRM and X2-10GB-LX4? [ In reply to ]
On 10/10/2011 06:00 PM, Mack McBride wrote:
> That older fiber is probably not rated at 500 Mhz Modal BW suggested by Cisco.
> Older fiber is usually 200 Mhz.

True, and I expect the fibers between our dorm to be no better than 200
MHz*km.

> The LX4 would be a better choice (more dispersion resistant) and max distance of 300M.

We're mainly testing with LRM because I don't like the concept of WDM
plus serial->parallel->serial conversion in a single transceiver. And
LRM is a newer standard. No, you're right, not the most technical
arguments ;)

Oh, if you look at
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/modules/ps5455/prod_white_paper0900aecd806b8bcb.html,
that doc doesn't mention LX4 being supported on MMF with modal bandwidth
< 500 MHZ*km...

> Your distance limitation is probably going to be much less than the rated value
> if the dispersion characteristics of the fiber don't meet the spec.

Other vendors also spec LRM to work on MMF with 160 or 200 MHz*km modal
bandwidth...

> Of course you will still get connectivity but you will increment errors.
> For dorms it probably doesn't matter much. If the streaming music and video is effected
> by errors it will probably save you money since the students won't stream as much.

Their streaming doesn't cost us anything and we're closely monitoring
the links to check if they remain error-free. We'll only run these links
if they remain reliable.

We have two links under test right now; a relatively short one
(somewhere between 30-50 meters) and a longer one, around 160 meters.
Both perform fine and have been error free for a couple of weeks. The
shorter without any mode conditioning; the longer with a mode
conditioning patch cord on one side (it'd flap & run with too many
errors without the MCP).
More testing to follow, but the LRM gear looks like a good solution for us.

Regards,

Jeroen van Ingen
ICT Service Centre
University of Twente, P.O.Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands


_______________________________________________
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/
Re: No Link between SFP-10G-LRM and X2-10GB-LX4? [ In reply to ]
The LRM looks like the way to go for you if you are limited by SFP+ as the Andrew pointed out.
The Cisco spec is for 220M at 500MHz fiber on LRM.
Basically with dispersion you will get shorter error free distance so
although the LX4 is only listed for 500MHz it will work at lower modal BW.
It just shortens the range. Same is true for the LRM.
It will work at lower modal BW but you get shorter ranges.
You are probably close to the limit with 160M and 200MHz modal BW.
And I would say you are over the 'rated' limit.
For reference the 50 micro with 400MHz modal BW the rated limit is 100M.

Mack

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeroen van Ingen [mailto:jeroen@zijndomein.nl]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 3:49 PM
To: Mack McBride
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] No Link between SFP-10G-LRM and X2-10GB-LX4?

On 10/10/2011 06:00 PM, Mack McBride wrote:
> That older fiber is probably not rated at 500 Mhz Modal BW suggested by Cisco.
> Older fiber is usually 200 Mhz.

True, and I expect the fibers between our dorm to be no better than 200
MHz*km.

> The LX4 would be a better choice (more dispersion resistant) and max distance of 300M.

We're mainly testing with LRM because I don't like the concept of WDM
plus serial->parallel->serial conversion in a single transceiver. And
LRM is a newer standard. No, you're right, not the most technical
arguments ;)

Oh, if you look at
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/modules/ps5455/prod_white_paper0900aecd806b8bcb.html,
that doc doesn't mention LX4 being supported on MMF with modal bandwidth
< 500 MHZ*km...

> Your distance limitation is probably going to be much less than the rated value
> if the dispersion characteristics of the fiber don't meet the spec.

Other vendors also spec LRM to work on MMF with 160 or 200 MHz*km modal
bandwidth...

> Of course you will still get connectivity but you will increment errors.
> For dorms it probably doesn't matter much. If the streaming music and video is effected
> by errors it will probably save you money since the students won't stream as much.

Their streaming doesn't cost us anything and we're closely monitoring
the links to check if they remain error-free. We'll only run these links
if they remain reliable.

We have two links under test right now; a relatively short one
(somewhere between 30-50 meters) and a longer one, around 160 meters.
Both perform fine and have been error free for a couple of weeks. The
shorter without any mode conditioning; the longer with a mode
conditioning patch cord on one side (it'd flap & run with too many
errors without the MCP).
More testing to follow, but the LRM gear looks like a good solution for us.

Regards,

Jeroen van Ingen
ICT Service Centre
University of Twente, P.O.Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands



_______________________________________________
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/
Re: No Link between SFP-10G-LRM and X2-10GB-LX4? [ In reply to ]
Mack,

On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 14:59 -0700, Mack McBride wrote:
> The LRM looks like the way to go for you if you are limited by SFP+ as
> the Andrew pointed out.

Only I'm not the OP :). Andrew is correct though, LX4 doesn't seem
available in SFP+.

> The Cisco spec is for 220M at 500MHz fiber on LRM.
> Basically with dispersion you will get shorter error free distance so
> although the LX4 is only listed for 500MHz it will work at lower modal BW.
> It just shortens the range. Same is true for the LRM.
> It will work at lower modal BW but you get shorter ranges.
> You are probably close to the limit with 160M and 200MHz modal BW.
> And I would say you are over the 'rated' limit.
> For reference the 50 micro with 400MHz modal BW the rated limit is 100M.

Well, actually I'm using SFP+ LRM transceivers from HP (J9152A) which
*are* spec'd for up to 220 meters on 160MHz modal BW MMF. But we're
drifting off-topic here :). Thanks for all your thoughts though.


Regards,

Jeroen van Ingen
ICT Service Centre
University of Twente, P.O.Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands


_______________________________________________
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/