64 OC-192s in a 7'' rack is NOT the same as 2 T640's placed one on top of another in a 7'' rack. I am positive that carriers would not put 2 T640s or 2 8812s (assuming it really works) on top of another. How will the airflow work?
2 T640's in a 7'' rack doesn't mean you can manage 64 OC-192s as a single element. You need the TX for that and that takes up its own rack. I thought with people like Tony around I don't need to explain these rudimentary concepts. Well, I am mistaken perhaps?
re: Cisco's HFR Gets ModThe Cisco thought police have kept a pretty tight lid on the specs of the HFR. Anyone have any insight on the following:
- Will the HFR move to a FPC & PIC-type linecard design or is Cisco expecting customers to shell out nearly $1M list price for a 4xOC-192 linecard (and pull it out when a single component fails?
- Any idea which interfaces will be supported beyond the obvious OC-768, 4xOC-192, 16xOC-48, 4x10Gig-E?
- Is the multi-chassis scaling platform going to be available from day 1 or is this another empty promise like the Juniper TX hub or Cisco's 1999 announcement of the GSR Terabit System?
re: Cisco's HFR Gets ModHow will the airflow work?
2 systems in a single rack will work exactly the same way as it does for a 7ft system...i.e. assuming all are NEBs compliant (I hope they are bearing in mind their target markets), they'll pull it in the front and push it out the back..
re: Cisco's HFR Gets ModHFR = 64 OC-192s in a 7 ft rack T640 = 32 OC-192s/chassis x 2 per rack = 64/rack 8812 = 48 OC-192s/chassis x 2 per rack = 96/rack
Juniper routers fit in a 19" rack though, so does Avici and Procket.
Of course neither the T640 nor the 8812 meet Telcordia requirements when you put two of them in a single rack, so these numbers are just academic... :)
re: Cisco's HFR Gets ModHFR = 64 OC-192s in a 7 ft rack T640 = 32 OC-192s/chassis x 2 per rack = 64/rack 8812 = 48 OC-192s/chassis x 2 per rack = 96/rack
Juniper routers fit in a 19" rack though, so does Avici and Procket.
Of course neither the T640 nor the 8812 meet Telcordia requirements when you put two of them in a single rack, so these numbers are just academic... :) -----------------
What routers with that much capacity meet power/weight/thermal for NEBs compliance? The NEB's spec doesn't scale with the effects of Moore's law. A carrier that really needs 96 10Gig ports per rack can choose to adapt thier facility to accept the weight and power regardless of NEB's guidelines.
re: Cisco's HFR Gets ModAvici has a shipping interconnect technology, but it uses up front-facing ports.
No, it doesn't use any front facing ports.
What routers with that much capacity meet power/weight/thermal for NEBs compliance?
Avici actually.
Very few sites need that kind of capacity of course, that's why it's kind of pointless to compare the number of OC-192 ports per rack for these boxes... 64, 48, great, how many of those fully-loaded boxes do you have deployed?
64 OC-192s in a 7'' rack is NOT the same as 2 T640's placed one on top of another in a 7'' rack. I am positive that carriers would not put 2 T640s or 2 8812s (assuming it really works) on top of another. How will the airflow work?
2 T640's in a 7'' rack doesn't mean you can manage 64 OC-192s as a single element. You need the TX for that and that takes up its own rack. I thought with people like Tony around I don't need to explain these rudimentary concepts. Well, I am mistaken perhaps?