> On Feb 2, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Charles Sprickman <sp...@bway.net> wrote: > > On Feb 2, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu> wrote: > >> On 2/Feb/15 18:46, Warren Jackson wrote: >>> Sure, no problem! >>> >>> 1) Lack of Cisco support. You will find yourself behind the eight-ball >>> dealing with the TAC if you have these in your chassis. Sounds like a >>> small deal, but I for one don't have the time to deal with it. >> >> I've found this not to be an issue in practice. > > And if it is, it’s solved with a handful of spares per location. If you have > 100 SFPs at one location and you’re saving a few hundred per SFP, keeping a > few “genuine” units is a small price if you have TAC paranoia.
…or if you just need to be able to rule that out as an issue. We do that, have
one each of the Cisco-branded units on hand.
-Bill
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
