On 07/01/12 15:50, Salman Zahid wrote: > 2. In terms of 3rd party optics support , we are evaluating the support > for 3rd party optics . Please continue to check the Juniper documentation and > talk to your account team for roadmap information .
My ire has cooled considerably since reading this statement yesterday, so here's an attempt at a sane response. Nobody is asking Juniper to *support* third party optics, they never have before. All we want is, that like all other Juniper products to date (that I'm aware of) that third party optics work, and have feature parity. If you're so worried about latency within a Qfabic making Juniper branded (because I'll bet they're not even a special run, let alone special model) optics required on the internal side of a fabric is annoying, but not all that objectionable. There's also nothing wrong with WONTFIXing latency tickets if the path is not 100% Juniper optics, much as other issues with third party optics are handled today. To lock third party optics out you had to *add* code to JunOS, remember that. Even ignoring common optic types (SR, LR, etc) there's still plenty of reasons to want third party optics, passive C/DWDM is just the start, RAD's [TE][13] SFP modules are another type that Juniper just don't offer.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
