On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 20:04 +0100, Marian Ďurkovič wrote: > On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 10:36:06 -0800, Ian Cox wrote > > It a little more complicated on the GLC vs SFP parts. The SFP parts are > > spec'd to support a higher case temperature then the GLCs. Some > > platforms airflow at worst case temperature can not sufficiently cool > > GLC, were as SFP parts are spec'd to work at the higher temperatures. > > > > Ian > > Yep, that's yet another reason to finally discontinue GLC parts - which also > lack DOM support. Especially when the manufacturing costs difference between > SFP > and GLC parts is something like 1 USD...
But... why oh why aren't SFP optics supported in the 6500[0]? If they're just supposed to be more durable I can't see the problem. And why can't I use a CAB-SFP in a 3750, even though it's completely genuine Cisco? I have some (though not much) sympathy for Cisco's not wanting to support 3rd party transceivers. Hey, they have to feed their kids and all that. But I fail to see why they won't support their own transceivers. That's just plain stupid. Oh well, we're in talks with a 3rd party provider that deliver optics that work without "service unsupported-transceiver" at a much lower price and 3 year warranty. -- Peter [0]: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/interfaces_modules/transceiver_modules/compatibility/matrix/OL_6981.html#wp139518 Also confirmed by an SE, telling us to buy GLCs instead. _______________________________________________ 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/
