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
On 02/02/2015 16:46, Warren Jackson wrote:
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.
You won't run into problems like this unless
Den 02.02.2015 17:46, skrev Warren Jackson:
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.
Cisco do actually have
On 02/02/2015 12:02, Warren Jackson wrote:
Highly recommend you do not use this in production.
Disagree, strongly.
Vendor transceivers are racket, a scam, hugely inflated and price, and
the practice of transceiver locking is enormously anti-competitive, not
to mention operationally tedious.
On 2/Feb/15 13:23, Harry Hambi - Atos wrote:
Hi all ,
I have a non-cisco SFP can someone remind me of the command to run in order to
use the SFP in a cisco chassis. Is the command a hidden command?, do you need
to run in interface config mode?, will the switch require a reboot?. Thanks in
Thanks
Rgds
Harry
Harry Hambi BEng(Hons) MIET Rsgb
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Warren
Jackson
Sent: 02 February 2015 12:03
To: Mark Tinka; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Non Cisco SFP
Highly recommend
On 2/Feb/15 14:02, Warren Jackson wrote:
Highly recommend you do not use this in production.
Because?
We do, no issues.
Mark.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at
On 02/02/2015 12:35, Phil Mayers wrote:
hugely inflated and price
s/and/in/
Sigh ;o)
___
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/
Hi all ,
I have a non-cisco SFP can someone remind me of the command to run in order to
use the SFP in a cisco chassis. Is the command a hidden command?, do you need
to run in interface config mode?, will the switch require a reboot?. Thanks in
advance
Rgds
Harry
Harry Hambi BEng(Hons)
And why is that?
We have many non-cisco optics deployed without trouble.
I would avoid the cheapest-of-the-cheap optics, as those have been rumored to
have trouble, slow i2c responses, or other issues that the software is poorly
coded to handle.
We’ve done this with SFP, XFP, SFP+ and CFP
Highly recommend you do not use this in production.
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 6:50 AM Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
On 2/Feb/15 13:23, Harry Hambi - Atos wrote:
Hi all ,
I have a non-cisco SFP can someone remind me of the command to run in
order to use the SFP in a cisco chassis. Is
@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Non Cisco SFP
On 02/02/2015 12:02, Warren Jackson wrote:
Highly recommend you do not use this in production.
Disagree, strongly.
Vendor transceivers are racket, a scam, hugely inflated and price, and the
practice of transceiver locking is enormously anti
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:29:41PM +, Rick Martin wrote:
I am glad to see this thread, we are on the cusp of making the plunge into
aftermarket optics
Whatever aftermarket optics are - I would not go and by *used* optics,
because that's about the only thing in modern hardware that
On Feb 2, 2015, at 11:16 AM, Gert Doering g...@greenie.muc.de wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 03:29:41PM +, Rick Martin wrote:
I am glad to see this thread, we are on the cusp of making the plunge into
aftermarket optics
Whatever aftermarket optics are - I would not go and by
This is exactly the opposite of my experience. The Cisco branded
optics are generally the problem supporting dom properly, or have
interoperability issues in their own gear, while the generics + a
programmer are generally more reliable, far cheaper, and far more
usable across the different
Agreed. We have all sorts of third party brand SFPs around here. 1G and
10G. You can buy both DOM capable or not. We've not had any problems out
of them.
Actually, this morning we swapped out an optic that died over night. It
was a Cisco branded one. :)
-Christopher
On 2/2/15, 12:56 PM, Jared
I was offering something for the super-geeks :)
at $dayjob we purchase from champion one, but have also tested other optics
from OSI hardware and others.
I’ve even heard of good luck from fiberstore.com as well, which is super-cheap.
- Jared
On Feb 2, 2015, at 11:46 AM, Matthew Crocker
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015, Warren Jackson wrote:
Sure, no problem!
2) Cost. If you buy through a Cisco gold provider then you are going to
get a good price on the optics, enough to where the difference pays off in
support, as these can been wrapped in through your smartnet converage. If
you have
You could buy
http://www.flexoptix.net/en/flexbox-v3-transceiver-programmer.html and save the
rPi headaches. I haven’t used this but it does look interesting.
Or, you could just go here: http://approvedoptics.com/ Cisco, Juniper every
SFP, XFP, SFP+ i’ve ordered has worked 100% and they
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.
2) Cost. If you buy through a Cisco gold provider then you are going
global command I had to use it
somewhat recently.
Aaron
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jared
Mauch
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 10:31 AM
To: Gert Doering
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Non Cisco SFP
On Feb 2, 2015, at 7:29 AM, Rick Martin rick.mar...@arkansas.gov wrote:
We are also looking at aftermarket DAC or Twinax cables, what has been your
experience with those in a Cisco environment? We have had a couple dozen Dell
DAC's connecting Dell servers to HP 5900's with good success but
On Feb 2, 2015, at 11:46 AM, Warren Jackson wrjack1...@gmail.com 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
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 04:46:30PM +, Warren Jackson wrote:
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.
It will only be a
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
On 2/Feb/15 19:24, Aaron wrote:
As previously mentioned , hidden IOS command service unsupported-transceiver...it is
global, not interface level... and for IOS XR I use, interface level, transceiver permit pid
all
I have service unsupported-transceiver in IOS XR and it works with no
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
I have just plugged some non Cisco Copper SFP's into 3560's
I am getting
*Mar 1 00:00:31.826: %GBIC_SECURITY_CRYPT-4-VN_DATA_CRC_ERROR: GBIC in
port Gi0/1 has bad crc
I have tried the usual service unsupported-transceiver and no
errdisable detect cause gbic-invalid
But am still not getting
-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] Non Cisco SFP-TX
I have just plugged some non Cisco Copper SFP's into 3560's
I am getting
*Mar 1 00:00:31.826:
%GBIC_SECURITY_CRYPT-4-VN_DATA_CRC_ERROR: GBIC in
port Gi0/1 has bad crc
I have tried the usual service unsupported-transceiver
29 matches
Mail list logo
