Mikael, this SFP in Gi1/0/1 which I used as an example in my previous email is bought from China from noname manufacturer and doesn't work without "service unsupported-transciever" if I remember correctly. At least the IDPROM of this SFP doesn't look like a Cisco one, does it? However, it supports DDM just fine as I showed.
Nick, I haven't worked much with newer Cisco switching products, but it's sad to hear this. Do you happen to know some particular products? At least Flexoptix would be happy about such trends :) regards, martin 2011/9/30 Nick Hilliard <[email protected]>: > On 30/09/2011 00:39, Martin T wrote: >> ..but manufactured in Asia. On the other hand, there are manufacturers >> like Finisar, Prolabs, Agilent etc, which make decent transceivers as >> much as I have experience. In addition, according to this article: >> http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=102950 ..Cisco buys >> SFP directly from Finisar. Do you see a difference in "Cisco branded >> Finisar SFP" and "Finisar SFP" other than content of EEPROM? > > Cisco buys transceivers from several companies. Sometimes the same product > SKU from a particular vendor might actually be sourced from several > different transceiver manufacturers. Do you think for a moment that that a > GLC-LH-SM bought in 1999 is going to be exactly the same component as a > GLC-LH-SM bought in 2011? Of course it isn't. > > Transceiver compatibility is a really difficult area. And one transceiver > is not the same as another. Bugs slip into the transceiver firmware and > hardware. Some vendors produce complete trash. Some vendors produce > really high quality products (e.g. finisar, opnext, etc) > >> It's a third-party SFP directly from China. As much as I understand, >> it doesn't have any sort of Cisco-branding, does it? Regardless it >> supports DDM. > > DDM is defined in SFF8472. It's nothing particularly to do with Cisco. > >> In addition, in the past, has there been times where one really was >> forced to use transceivers with Cisco serials because there were no >> "service unsupported-transceiver" and "no errdisable detect cause >> gbic-invalid" commands? Maybe some seasoned network engineer >> remembers.. > > Yes, that was the case in the past. And unfortunately, Cisco have recently > either deliberately started ignoring "service unsupported-transceiver" on > some of their new products, or else the transceiver device drivers are > sufficiently portably written that they no longer work with many types of > transceiver. Either way, transceiver compatibility problems are rearing > their ugly head again in a major way. > > Nick > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
