+1 Nobody wants "support" just don't cripple the platform. "Reasons to use Juniper over Cisco" - 1 if this stays this way, or becomes the norm. On Jan 7, 2012 9:28 PM, "Julien Goodwin" <jgood...@studio442.com.au> wrote:
> 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. > > > _______________________________________________ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp