Re: [c-nsp] CISCO-AVAGO CISCO-FINISAR etc SFPs

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:05:10AM +, CiscoNSP List wrote: > Are the cisco-avago, cisco-finisar "genuine" Cisco optics? i.e TAC will > provide support if you are using them? Ours were purchased through a Cisco > disty (As a Cisco part)We are hitting multiple issues with them (10G >

Re: [c-nsp] CISCO-AVAGO CISCO-FINISAR etc SFPs

No, they still rip you off big time. Just got quoted on a 10g SFP+ singlemode SFP for roughly 70 times more expensive than the equivalent component in fiberstore. I gave the client the option for both - $40 $2,847.76 And they went with the genuine cisco part, because of our scary disclaimer

Re: [c-nsp] CISCO-AVAGO CISCO-FINISAR etc SFPs

Thanks Nick - So they sell competing Optics? i.e They have a "cisco-avago" SFP-10G-AOC and "cisco" SFP-10G-AOC?- The cisco-avago being cheap, and cisco being 000's? (They couldnt(wouldnt) be doing this?) - lol, No one in there right mind would purchase the "cisco" optics ever again?

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

On 31/Oct/17 15:30, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > But I actually do mind the fact that, > > 1)BGP tables (e.g. bgp.l3vpn.0) are created only at the instance when PE > needs to store received MP-BGP routes in them. > -this is very confusing when coming from vendor where all tables

Re: [c-nsp] CISCO-AVAGO CISCO-FINISAR etc SFPs

Well, a bunch of vendors now sell optics that do not require the secret command on IOS to ignore the non cisco coding. I guess buy a few – the 10g SR’s are about $16 - However, we got burned in 2015 when a client with non cisco parts using the “service unsupported-transceiver” would NOT be

Re: [c-nsp] CISCO-AVAGO CISCO-FINISAR etc SFPs

Thanks - Yes I realize Cisco dont manufacture their own optics (They use finisar etc), but all "genuine" Cisco optics Ive seen previously have never had the manufacturers name in bold writing on the optic? (Havent purchased genuine Cisco optics for a long time - Probably the reason why )

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

> Mark Tinka > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 5:57 AM > > > > On 26/Oct/17 11:08, Dale Shaw wrote: > > > Indeed. > > > > Mark, try asking on juniper-nsp instead: > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > > > In related news, I see that Juniper has announced the MX150

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

> From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu] > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 5:59 AM > > On 26/Oct/17 10:26, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > The selection of tool depends on the job to be done, and you haven't > provided any info on what you intend to use the boxes for so I can >

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

On 31/Oct/17 15:33, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote: > Interesting, seems like two mpc7 cards connected back to back, wondering how > they managed to connect 4 trio chips in a non-blocking fashion with no > crossbar. > Does anyone have any material on the platform internals please? There is

Re: [c-nsp] CISCO-AVAGO CISCO-FINISAR etc SFPs

Hello, 2017-10-31 15:49 GMT+01:00 Nick Cutting : > Well, a bunch of vendors now sell optics that do not require the secret > command on IOS to ignore the non cisco coding. > > I guess buy a few – the 10g SR’s are about $16 - > > However, we got burned in 2015 when a

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

On 31 October 2017 at 07:56, Mark Tinka wrote: >> In related news, I see that Juniper has announced the MX150 ("vTrio" which >> I assume means vMX on x86) and MX204 -- both 1RU. It's about time :-) > > Don't forget about the MX10003. Am I only one puzzled about MX204 port

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

Regarding CWDM/DWDM, you could always add a QFX5110-48SH as a port extender box to the MX204 with Junos Fusion Provider Edge and sacrifice one or two 100G QSFP28 ports on the MX204. That way you'd have 2x100G and 48x 1/10G SFP+ ports with a bit of oversubscription in 2RU. Does anyone know if

[c-nsp] CISCO-AVAGO CISCO-FINISAR etc SFPs

Are the cisco-avago, cisco-finisar "genuine" Cisco optics? i.e TAC will provide support if you are using them? Ours were purchased through a Cisco disty (As a Cisco part)We are hitting multiple issues with them (10G Optic will not initialize in ASR920, 100G give no light/power readings in

Re: [c-nsp] Juniper MX240 & MX480

> Am I only one puzzled about MX204 port choice, 4xQSFP28 + 8xSFP+. > Seems like it's positioned to datacenters facing upstream? I'd want > 2xQSFP28 and maybe 36xSFP+ (oversub is fine), with attractive > licensing using SFP+ as SFP only, to add L3 DFZ 1GE aggregation box to > JNPR portfolio. > I