Talk:Small Form-factor Pluggable/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Small Form-factor Pluggable. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Early comment

Definitely does not need to be multiple SFP articles. Arguments could be made for and against any variation on the name (SFP optic, small form factor pluggable optic, etc), but "SFP transceiver" is a pretty good one.Mrand 02:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Are Fibre Channel and Ethernet SFP transcievers compatible with each other and/or the same device? Considering that they are the same form factor, it would be useful to have this information in this article Jon Thompson 04:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Port definition

Which is the TX and RX port? What laser class is the TX? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.246.146.251 (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

SFPs are Right-handed pitchers. So, as you look down the Tx & Rx barrels (the orientation of the article picture), the left is TX, and the right is Rx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.8.137 (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but is it written down somewhere in a technical document (standard)? If I get one, which has them reversed, what can I cite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.38.110.188 (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If you take a picture of the ports with a digital camera, you'll see the transmit port as a white dot. The IR radiation saturates the camera sensor.

URL needs to be fixed

The URL for the reference ^ "10-Gigabit Ethernet camp eyes SFP+" has changed due to a website redesign. The new URL is http://www.lightwaveonline.com/about-us/lightwave-issue-archives/issue/10-gigabit-ethernet-camp-eyes-sfp-53428172.html. Stephenhlightwave (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Done The ref was moved to the new SFP+ article so I've fixed it there. I did not check the link because login is required. --Kvng (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Optical vs. Electrical

This article makes it look like there are only optical SFPs out there, but you can also get electrical ones. Shouldn't this be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snip (talk • contribs) 12:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC) I was trying to add electrical SFP, but my changes are removed. How can we ensure the changes are reflected?

It looks like Dgtsyb (talk · contribs) and RenaudLavoie (talk · contribs) are having an edit war over this. Why don't we try to resolve this here? --Kvng (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Hi Kvng, yes I think we can solve this. I have a request to add coaxial SFP for SDI transport on wikipedia by a customer (i know it is not there to promote product, but I want to highlight the fact that SFP transceiver are use for other market, telecomm, datacomm and video broadcast! Please let me know how it should be mentionned!

Read WP:EL. The link that you keep adding is to a specific company's commercial product page: that is not an appropriate citation and is an inappropriate external link. Try a book that discusses these other uses for citation. The text already identifies electrical connectivity as an option to optical, or just leave the link off. — Dgtsyb (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)OK, but why the two links points on two products pages? MRV and Yamasaki ? there is a major difference in SDI transport and electrical connectivity like Ethernet RJ45, like mentionned I received a request to highlight this difference in wikipedia. I also change the link to the article in the broadcast magazine instead of products page, I can also add a picture to show the major difference, is this better? Thanks

SFP vs. SPF

There are links to this article on both SFP and SPF disambiguation pages. Are both acronyms in common use? --Kvng (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of them referred to as SPF, and every instance I can find of SPF appears to be a typo of SFP. I think it could (and should) be removed from the SPF page - if you agree, feel free to do so! —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 20:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Done Looks like unregistered editor at 212.136.56.100 removed it back in April 2011? My guess it was a typo, as I suspect "NAS" was for SAN originally: an executive was too embarrased to admit being dyslectic. :-) W Nowicki (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

SFP+ merge

Certainly that article Enhanced small form-factor pluggable transceiver needs to be either beefed up or merged. It might be worth a little research first to see if they are related more closely than just in name - I think they are but not sure. If nothing else, this article needs a bit more on the historical narrative: what came before, how it is related, what came after etc. Perhaps by working on that it might become more clear if a single article would make sense. W Nowicki (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

SFP is 1 Gb. SFP+ is 10 Gb. SFP+, as you might guess, is an evolutionary improvement on SFP. The physical form-factor is the same. They are not electrically interchangeable many of the signals are the same. --Kvng (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You are a little off for SFP: SFP supports OC-48 FEC (2.67 Gbs); SFP+ supports OC-192 FEC (10.68 Gbps). SFP are the most popular optical modules ever made. SFP+ are not. Aside from going a little faster (and thus more expensive) there is not much notable about SFP+. XFP modules are far more popular at the OC-192 and 10 Gbps rates (possibly due to the lack of host chips with integrated CDR and SERDES). I really don't care either way about a merge. — Dgtsyb (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

They should be merged because they are plug compatible and if the articles two were expanded, vast majority of content would be identical. I'm not sure why XFP got brought up, but you may not be aware that 10GE SFP+ is undergoing rapid adoption in the datacenter, and many router vendors now offer SFP+ based 48-port 1-RU routers (Force10, Juniper, Cisco, etc). At that density, I expect sales will very soon surpass XFP's, if they haven't already. —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 15:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeing that most of the new commodity switches are using SFP+ for their 10 Gb uplinks. Does anyone have citation for popularity of XFP vs. SFP+? I don't think SFP and SFP+ are plug compatible. You may be able to get an SFP+ module into a SFP slot but it won't work. --Kvng (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Other way around: an SFP module will work in an SFP+ slot. The differences is mostly material used in the cage (nickel plating and EMI gasket option), dimensional tolerances, slight footprint keep-out changes, and heat sink option on SFP+ — Dgtsyb (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. For me, strengthens the case for a merge. Do you have any citations for this information? --Kvng (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Obvious to anyone who cared to read the standards: (just two examples) SFF-8432, Abstract, Page 1: "The mechanical dimensioning allows backwards compatibility between IPF modules plugged into most SFP cages which have been implemented to SFF-8074i. It is anticipated that when the application requires it, manufacturers will be able to supply cages that accept SFP style modules. In both cases the EMI leakage is expected to be similar to that when SFP modules and cages are mated." SFF-8431, Chapter 2 Low Speed Electrical and Power Specifications, 2.1 Introduction, Page 4: "The SFP+ low speed electrical interface has several enhancements over the classic SFP interface (INF-8074i), but the SFP+ host can be designed to also support most legacy SFP modules." — Dgtsyb (talk) 07:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've done the merge. The merge is a bit rough but the article was already a bit rough. --Kvng (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

SFP+ vs SPF Fiber Optic Transceiver?

Whats the difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dosman (talk • contribs) 20:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Tolerances and maximum frequency mostly. — Dgtsyb (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the standard or section of the standard for SPF Fiber Optic Transceiver? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dosman (talk • contribs) 03:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

See references 1 and 6 in the article. Duh. — Dgtsyb (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

100BASE-FX

There is no mention of 100BASE-FX SFP. These are used by a variety of vendors for test equipment and communications equipment. 1300 nm for multimode 62.5 and 50. micron fiber. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/modules/ps5455/ps6578/product_data_sheet0900aecd801ba88e.html 71.62.113.146 (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC) John Culleton

I'm suprised to see that this is also available from other manufacturers - [1], [2]. --Kvng (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

SFP is NOT only Ethernet

Why no mention of the various SDH / SONET applications of SFP modules? STM-4 (S-4.1, L-4.1, L-4.2) / OC-12 (IR-1, LR-1, LR-2) : 15, 40 & 80Km STM-1 (S-1.1, L-1.1, L-1.2): 15, 40 & 80km OC-3 (SR-0, IR-1, LR-1, LR-2): 2, 15, 40 & 80km e.t.c.

http://www.finisar.com/products/optical-modules/sfp

192.91.191.162 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Be BOLD and put it in then! —me_and 18:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Remove "SFP Fiber Optic Transceiver"?

Everything stated in that section seems to refer to SFP+ and not the original SFP which might come across as misleading. Maybe remove this section and add reference 10 to the SFP+ section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.69.170.1 (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Digital Diagnostics binary/hex error

The last line reads, "The diagnostic monitoring controller is available as an I²C device at address 1010001X (A2h)." but 1010001X ≠ A2h. Should it be 1010010X (A2h) or 1010001 (A1h)? My guess is the latter. 206.193.225.214 (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)RonH

1010001X actually IS A2h, if X=0. A2h would be the write address to this port. If X=1, it becomes A3h which signifies a read from address A2h. Perhaps the confusion stems from the fact that some call the address by its right-shifted value, removing the read/write bit (in this case the address becomes 51h, followed by the read/write bit). The Philips standard refers to the complete 8-bit value including the read/write bit. ~Hummelong 22 November 2013

QSFP/QSFP+

What about QSFP/QSFP+ ? Should we write about them here? `a5b (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you proposing a merge from QSFP to here? There certainly it not much in that article yet. Also my inclination is to spell out English words instead of using acronyms in titles. So would be inclined to support such a merge. Or beef each one up as we find time. W Nowicki (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I have put up merge banners and am also inclined to support. ~KvnG 13:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking at doing this merge in more detail and it is not looking like a good idea. QSFP is a different form factor. It has a different electrical connector. It uses a different optical connector. There are apparently some similarities as evidenced by availability of an adaptor. I think they're distict enough to merit separate articles. I am taking down the merge banners. Feel free to restore and continue discussion here if you disagree. ~KvnG 22:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that QSFP is a closely related, but distinct module from SFP+, both physically and electrically. I think it makes sense to have it on its own page. I'm not sure why the text of the link got shortened from "Quad" to "Q", though. I'll probably fix that. Somewhere or other (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Small form-factor pluggable transceiver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)