View Issue Details
|ID||Project||Category||View Status||Date Submitted||Last Update|
|0001535||RackTables||default||public||2015-11-25 01:07||2017-06-23 16:03|
|Target Version||Fixed in Version|
|Summary||0001535: Add more support for Fibre Channel (FC) transceivers and cabling|
|Description||Most current Fibre Channel(FC) ports utilize the SFP style adapter to LC fiber connectors (old 1G mostly used SC fiber connectors).|
Common data rates include 2/4/8/16Gb (1G, 10G, 20G also exist, 32G & 128G are coming)
At least for Cisco, some backwards compatibility exists:
2G - 1/2/4
4G - (1/)2/4/8/16
8G - (1/)2/4/8/16
16G - 4/8/16
There are 2 common modules: ShortWave(SW - multimode) and LongWave(LW - singlemode), with SW being more common.
Some additional transceiver options include ExtendedReach(ER) and a variety of CWDM "colors" for 1/2/4/8G, but these are probably not common enough to bother with(for now?).
On some Cisco models, the physical socket can be reconfigured to accept FC or ethernet SFP+ modules - e.g. Unified Ports on Nexus 5000 series .
|Additional Information||Not sure if a new PortInnerInterface type is needed? e.g. FC-SFP+ / "Empty FC-SFP+", etc...?|
PortOuterInterface needs entries like:
FC2G-SW, FC2G-LW - (SW=ShortWave/Multi Mode, LW=LongWave/Single mode)
PatchCableOIFCompat needs entries like:
FCxx-SW - 2xMMF(1,2,3,4 - OM1/2/3/4)
FCxx-LW - 2xSMF(5,6 - OS1/2)
PortInterfaceCompat needs entries like:
FC-SFP+, Empty FC-SFP+
FC-SFP+, FCxxG-xW (2/4/8/16 and SW/LW)
PortCompat needs entries like:
FC2G-SW - FC1/2/4G-SW - not sure whether to bother with 1G?
FC2G-LW - FC1/2/4G-LW
FC4G-SW - FC2/4/8/16G-SW - not sure where 1G compat goes away, may vary...
FC4G-LW - FC2/4/8/16G-LW
FC8G-SW - FC2/4/8/16G-SW
FC8G-LW - FC2/4/8/16G-LW
FC16G-SW - FC4/8/16G-SW - not sure where 2G compat goes away, may vary...
FC16G-LW - FC4/8/16G-LW
|Tags||No tags attached.|
|This request is generally reasonable but the suggested mappings need to be carefully studied before adding to avoid unnecessary complications in future.|
|Would love to help with this. The interface types listed above appear generally correct - what remains?|
|Although one thing I should mention is that 32Gb fiber channel has hit the market recently - that should be accounted for as well.|