On 6/18/11 4:32 PM, "Andrew Miehs" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Saturday, June 18, 2011, Graham Wooden <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't assume that if a SUP-based VSL link fails that it's the SUPs
>> fault. It depends on your environment; our campus (a dirty manufacturing
>> complex), we are constantly fighting SM fiber strand issues all the time.
>
> I think the issue being described was whether it makes sense to use an
> additional module to provide the second vsl connection.
That was not what I was commenting on ... I was going by Scott's comment of:
"Our thought is that if the sup based VSL fails ... odds are high (100% ?)
that the sup itself failed and the box would be dead anyway "
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
