https://network-switch.com/pages/about-us
Quick take
ACC and AEC are "active copper" cable assemblies-copper cables with electronics inside the connector ends-to make high-speed links more stable than passive DAC in real racks.
- ACC (Active Copper Cable) exists across a wide range of generations (from legacy speeds up to 1.6T-class active copper products).
- AEC (Active Electrical Cable) is widely discussed today in 400G and 800G deployments, especially where density and signal integrity margins become hard to maintain with passive copper.
This article focuses on 100G-400G because that's where many teams feel the most friction: "the link comes up" is easy; "the link stays clean under real load, bundled in a real rack" is the hard part.
If you remember one rule: don't decide from link-up tests-decide from counters under workload-like traffic.
Why ACC/AEC keep coming up? (the reality gap)
In lab diagrams, copper looks simple. In racks, we keep seeing practical deviations that don't show up on paper:
- The link is clean on a bench, then FEC/CRC counters creep once cables are bundled and traffic looks real.
- A link is stable for days, then becomes movement-sensitive after a maintenance re-route.
- Something that "worked last quarter" becomes painful after a firmware/NOS update changes validation or tuning behavior.
We don't treat these as "mystery problems" anymore. We treat them as margin problems exposed by real installation conditions-and that's exactly what active copper is meant to address.
Definitions (and why people get confused)
Vendors don't label ACC vs AEC perfectly consistently, so we use a working definition that matches how the ecosystem talks about active copper components:
- ACC: active copper assemblies that use signal conditioning (often equalization / redriver-class approaches) to extend reach versus passive twinax. For example, Semtech positions its CopperEdge linear equalizer as designed for ACC assembly applications to provide reach extension beyond passive DAC.
- AEC: commonly positioned as an "active electrical cable" category and often marketed most heavily around 400G/800G deployments today.
Important scope clarification:
We are not saying ACC/AEC only exist at 100G-400G. ACC already reaches 1.6T-class product announcements, and manufacturers list ACC/AEC families across multiple speed tiers.
We're choosing 100G-400G as the primary usage focus because it's where the majority of mainstream "active copper vs passive DAC vs AOC/optics" decisions still happen in day-to-day projects.
What "active" is really buying you?
At 100G-400G, what you're paying for is rarely "more bandwidth." You're paying for stability margin in environments that punish copper:
- high-density bundling
- tight bends behind ports
- airflow constraints that force ugly routing
- mixed platform tolerance differences
One thing we've learned: the most expensive copper problems aren't total failures. They're the intermittent ones-because they trigger long debugging chains and repeated maintenance windows.
ACC in practice (100G-400G focus, broader market exists)
ACC tends to be chosen when passive DAC is "almost fine," but the installation reality keeps nibbling away at margin.
What we keep running into during bring-up:
- A cable that "passes" in a clean setup becomes fragile once it's routed through a crowded tray.
- Two links of the same type behave differently because the mechanical routing differs slightly (bend stress near the connector matters more than people expect).
Under the hood, the ACC ecosystem often leans on equalization/redriver-style help. Semtech's latest CopperEdge equalizer is explicitly framed around ACC assemblies to extend reach over passive DAC.
And again: ACC is not limited to 100G-400G-there are explicit 1.6T active copper cable announcements in the market.
AEC in practice (why 400G/800G gets the spotlight)
AEC content and product positioning in the market today is heavily concentrated around 400G and 800G because that's where many teams hit a practical wall with passive copper in dense racks.
How it shows up operationally:
- AEC is considered when you need a stronger "stability lever" than passive copper provides.
- Teams often choose it when they want copper handling, but their environment is forcing them to fight signal integrity and routing at scale.
How to choose: DAC vs ACC vs AEC vs AOC vs optics
Use these five questions. They keep teams out of spec-sheet arguments:
- Physical scope: in-rack / adjacent rack / same row / cross-row / cross-room
- What hurts more: CAPEX (hardware) or OPEX (debug time, change windows)?
- Is cable bulk/airflow now a design constraint?
- How upgrade-heavy / mixed-platform is the environment?
- Do you already operate a structured fiber plant well? (panels, trunks, polarity, cleaning discipline)
A practical mapping:
- Passive DAC: shortest, simplest, least variables
- ACC: when passive is near the edge and you want a modest stability boost (still "copper cable operations")
- AEC: when you need a stronger lever and better repeatability at scale (often discussed most in 400G/800G contexts) fs
- AOC: when weight, airflow, and routing complexity dominate
- Optics + fiber: when reach and structured plant operations dominate
Validation we trust (because we got burned when we skipped it)
Keep it lightweight and repeatable:
- Don't stop at link-up
- Test with workload-like traffic (not ping)
- Watch counters over time
- Bundle like production (same tray, same density)
- Swap one variable at a time (cable vs port vs config)
- Qualify on the strictest platform first
- Sample-qualify the batch before scaling
FAQs (short answers, engineer-grade)
Q1: Is AEC/ACC copper or fiber?
A: Copper. Both are copper assemblies with active electronics at the ends.
Q2: Are ACC/AEC limited to 100G-400G?
A: No. ACC is already shown in 1.6T-class active copper announcements, and manufacturers list active copper families across multiple tiers.
Q3: When should I choose ACC vs AEC (in 100G-400G projects)?
A: ACC for a modest margin boost; AEC when you need a stronger stability lever and repeatability in harsher rack conditions.
Q4: Why does a link look fine at idle but show errors under sustained load?
A: Marginal channels reveal themselves under real traffic; validate with workload-like flows.
Q5: Why do errors appear only when cables are bundled tightly?
A: Bundling increases crosstalk and pressure/bend effects-test "as-installed," not separated.
Q6: Why can moving the cable near the connector change stability?
A: Small movement changes stress/micro-bends at the termination area-fix routing/strain relief first.
Q7: Why did a firmware/NOS update suddenly break a previously working cable?
A: Validation rules and tuning can change-re-qualify a small batch on the new release.
Q8: Why does the same cable work on Switch A but not Switch B (same port type)?
A: PHY/ASIC tolerance and tuning differ-"same QSFP" doesn't mean the same electrical implementation.
Q9: We see rising FEC corrections but no CRC-should we care?
A: Yes. It means the link is burning margin and may become unstable after heat/bundling/maintenance changes.
Summary
ACC/AEC exist because real racks are harsher than theory-bundling, bends, heat, and platform tolerance differences expose margin issues that link-up tests won't. ACC and AEC are not limited to 100G-400G, but 100G-400G is where many teams feel the "almost stable" pain most often, so it's a practical focus zone for deployment decisions.
Meanwhile, the market clearly shows ACC moving into 1.6T-class active copper, and AEC is widely discussed around 400G/800G use cases.
Did this article help you or not? Tell us on Facebook and LinkedIn . We’d love to hear from you!
