On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists <li...@hojmark.org> wrote: > On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 01:05:09 +0100, you wrote: > >> Of course. That just means that Cisco is bound to alienate some subset >> of their customers. And I can't imagine Cisco doesn't know that their >> competitors _really_ use this to their advantage. I'm not sure e.g. >> HP/H3C is better, but boy do they know what irritate Ciscos customers... > > Ha. > > I had a customer with HP VirtualConnect Flex-10 and Cisco Nexus 5000, > who couldn't use a Cisco cable (DAC) because the VC wouldn't accept it > and couldn't use a HP cable because the N5K wouldn't accept it. So ... > 'service unsupported' to the rescue. > > So, I don't see how HP is better when it comes to pluggables. Au > contraire. > > -A > PS: And now Cisco even officially support some HP DACs.
The issue of SFP compatibility has driven me up the wall and around the bend. Vendors will not change their anti-competitive behavior without external force. An external force I can apply, is money. So buy SFPs from OEM and instruct them to code the SFP as needed (they are making the SFPs for VendorC/J/H anyway.) There are plenty of companies who will do it, and they make a decent product. You may have to carry the burden of "testing" the SFPs. -- Tim:> p.s. The situation with DACs is ridiculous. We stick to optics if we don't completely control the equipment on either side. _______________________________________________ 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/
