On 17/03/2010, at 9:16 PM, Phil Mayers wrote: >> certainly if you are most focussed on long-distance optics or DWDM >> then indeed SFP+ is probably not for you. > > True, but... > > Hearing statements which add up to "this whole transceiver platform depends > on the transceiver, linecard hardware and firmware interacting correctly" may > read to some as "we plan on screwing you with expensive official cisco > transceivers".
no, far from it. there have always been quirks/caveats/errata with practically every transceiver format, simply that you as an end user often haven't had visibility into it exactly because of the qualification/certification that goes on behind the scenes. maybe my mistake here is in being too open about some of the challenges we've seen with some of the newer transceiver formats. i'll ensure i don't make the mistake in being open and honest next time. ;) > > It would be good if Cisco were to adopt an official, consistent, > cross-platform position on non-Cisco transceivers, and one which was > favourable towards said transceivers provided they are in-spec for that > transceiver platform. Cisco does all of the above. there is an official, consistent cross-platform position. see <http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/prod_warranty09186a00800b5594.html> the command for 'allowing' 3rd party transceivers is well known and has been posted on here many times now. its not exactly a secret. the output from the switch when you enable it basically matches the above policy. cheers, lincoln. _______________________________________________ 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/
