> However - crappy though they were, imagine my irritation when, even with > "service unsupported-transceiver", a duplicate SFP serial number caused > err-disable on BOTH ports, and requires BOTH transceivers to be removed. > > It's not obvious to me that this is a reasonable response; the 1st > transceiver was in, and forwarding packets. Why disable it? What > possible "value" does that add? > > So even the Cisco model is a bit more restrictive than first > appearances. It's only "some" unsupported transceivers.
I believe I've also seen the problem that switches which *can* read DOM values (e.g. 3560, ME3400) won't do this for non-cisco branded SFPs (e.g. when you need to use "service unsupported-transceiver") even when the SFPs themselves support this (and will happily supply optical signal levels when inserted for instance into a Juniper MX router). Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
