Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Ryan Gelobter]

But that is all done in the python script I imagine, it doesn't look like
theirs really much validation unless I'm missing something. Shouldn't be
too hard to figure out what its doing in the background after you run that
command.

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Ryan, Spencer <sr...@arbor.net> wrote:

> It won't work. They require the hashed key that support/your AM has to
> generate for your org.
>
>
>
> * Spencer Ryan* | Senior Systems Administrator | sr...@arbor.net
> *Arbor Networks*
> +1.734.794.5033 (d) | +1.734.846.2053 (m)
> www.arbornetworks.com
>
> --
> *From:* NANOG <nanog-boun...@nanog.org> on behalf of Ryan Gelobter <
> rya...@atwgpc.net>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 23, 2016 10:58:36 AM
> *To:* Stanislaw
> *Cc:* nanog list
> *Subject:* Re: Arista unqualified SFP
>
> Instead of patching the python what happens if you just run 'no errdisable
> recovery cause xcvr-unsupported'
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 5:24 AM, Stanislaw <m...@nek0.net> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > If somebody is following my epic adventure of getting uqualified SFP to
> > work on Aristas, here is the unhappy end of it.
> >
> > I've written to Arista support and got the following dialogue:
> > Support guy:
> > Hi,
> > Thank you for contacting Arista Support. My name is  and I'll be
> > assisting you on this case.
> > Could you please provide the "show version" output from this switch?
> >
> > Me:
> > Hi,
> > Here it is:
> > 
> >
> > Support guy:
> > Hi,
> > Thank you for the information.
> > Unfortunately, we are unable to activate your 3rd party components. To
> > ensure ongoing quality, Arista devices are designed to support only
> > properly qualified transceivers.
> > Please let me know if you have any other questions.
> >
> > Me:
> > I do not understand,
> > But there is a command which allows using non-Arista transceivers. Why
> > have you implemented it but don't provide an access key to your customers
> > when they ask for it?
> > If it is required to sign some papers which declare that I am aware of
> all
> > the risks and losing my warranty - I agree with that, lets do it. Any way
> > what are the conditions to receive that access key?
> >
> > Support guy:
> > I'm afraid that there is nothing I'm able to do regarding this situation.
> > If you have any other questions regarding enabling 3rd party options in
> > Arista switches, I suggest to contact your local account team (or sales)
> > for further discussion on this matter.
> >
> >
> > Next, i've tried inserting various QSFP+ DAC cables I have - none of them
> > has been even detected on the switch, it was acting like nothing has been
> > inserted. I guess that even if I get the key, most of my transceivers/DAC
> > (which work like a champ in Juniper or Extreme switches) cables wouldnt
> > work.
> >
> > I'm writing this post to make somebody who considers buying their
> switches
> > be aware of what they'd get. Just buy Juniper instead.
> >
> >
> >
> > Stanislaw wrote at 2016-08-17 23:25:
> >
> >> Hi Tim,
> >>
> >> Thanks for your expressive answer. Will try it :)
> >>
> >> Tim Jackson писал 2016-08-17 22:57:
> >>
> >> I'd suggest bitching and moaning at your account team & support until
> >>> they give you the key to unlock them..
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Tim
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Stanislaw <m...@nek0.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>> Is there a way for unlocking off-brand transceivers usage on Arista
> >>>> switches?
> >>>>
> >>>> I've got an Arista 7050QX switch with 4.14 EOS version. Then it has
> >>>> been found out that Arista switches seem to not have possibility to
> unlock
> >>>> off-brand xcievers usage (by some service command or so).
> >>>>
> >>>> I've patched /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/XcvrAgent.py, made the
> >>>> checking function bypass the actual check and it helped: ports are
> not in
> >>>> errdisable state anymore. But despite of xceivers are detected
> correctly,
> >>>> links aren't coming up (they are in notconnect state).
> >>>>
> >>>> If anyone possibly have does have a sacred knowledge of bringing
> >>>> off-branded transceivers to life on Arista switches, your help'd be
> very
> >>>> appreciated. Thanks.
> >>>>
> >>>
>

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Ryan, Spencer]

It won't work. They require the hashed key that support/your AM has to generate 
for your org.


Spencer Ryan | Senior Systems Administrator | 
sr...@arbor.net<mailto:sr...@arbor.net>
Arbor Networks
+1.734.794.5033 (d) | +1.734.846.2053 (m)
www.arbornetworks.com<http://www.arbornetworks.com/>



From: NANOG <nanog-boun...@nanog.org> on behalf of Ryan Gelobter 
<rya...@atwgpc.net>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 10:58:36 AM
To: Stanislaw
Cc: nanog list
Subject: Re: Arista unqualified SFP

Instead of patching the python what happens if you just run 'no errdisable
recovery cause xcvr-unsupported'

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 5:24 AM, Stanislaw <m...@nek0.net> wrote:

> Hi all,
> If somebody is following my epic adventure of getting uqualified SFP to
> work on Aristas, here is the unhappy end of it.
>
> I've written to Arista support and got the following dialogue:
> Support guy:
> Hi,
> Thank you for contacting Arista Support. My name is  and I'll be
> assisting you on this case.
> Could you please provide the "show version" output from this switch?
>
> Me:
> Hi,
> Here it is:
> 
>
> Support guy:
> Hi,
> Thank you for the information.
> Unfortunately, we are unable to activate your 3rd party components. To
> ensure ongoing quality, Arista devices are designed to support only
> properly qualified transceivers.
> Please let me know if you have any other questions.
>
> Me:
> I do not understand,
> But there is a command which allows using non-Arista transceivers. Why
> have you implemented it but don't provide an access key to your customers
> when they ask for it?
> If it is required to sign some papers which declare that I am aware of all
> the risks and losing my warranty - I agree with that, lets do it. Any way
> what are the conditions to receive that access key?
>
> Support guy:
> I'm afraid that there is nothing I'm able to do regarding this situation.
> If you have any other questions regarding enabling 3rd party options in
> Arista switches, I suggest to contact your local account team (or sales)
> for further discussion on this matter.
>
>
> Next, i've tried inserting various QSFP+ DAC cables I have - none of them
> has been even detected on the switch, it was acting like nothing has been
> inserted. I guess that even if I get the key, most of my transceivers/DAC
> (which work like a champ in Juniper or Extreme switches) cables wouldnt
> work.
>
> I'm writing this post to make somebody who considers buying their switches
> be aware of what they'd get. Just buy Juniper instead.
>
>
>
> Stanislaw wrote at 2016-08-17 23:25:
>
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> Thanks for your expressive answer. Will try it :)
>>
>> Tim Jackson писал 2016-08-17 22:57:
>>
>> I'd suggest bitching and moaning at your account team & support until
>>> they give you the key to unlock them..
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Stanislaw <m...@nek0.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>> Is there a way for unlocking off-brand transceivers usage on Arista
>>>> switches?
>>>>
>>>> I've got an Arista 7050QX switch with 4.14 EOS version. Then it has
>>>> been found out that Arista switches seem to not have possibility to unlock
>>>> off-brand xcievers usage (by some service command or so).
>>>>
>>>> I've patched /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/XcvrAgent.py, made the
>>>> checking function bypass the actual check and it helped: ports are not in
>>>> errdisable state anymore. But despite of xceivers are detected correctly,
>>>> links aren't coming up (they are in notconnect state).
>>>>
>>>> If anyone possibly have does have a sacred knowledge of bringing
>>>> off-branded transceivers to life on Arista switches, your help'd be very
>>>> appreciated. Thanks.
>>>>
>>>

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Ryan Gelobter]

Instead of patching the python what happens if you just run 'no errdisable
recovery cause xcvr-unsupported'

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 5:24 AM, Stanislaw  wrote:

> Hi all,
> If somebody is following my epic adventure of getting uqualified SFP to
> work on Aristas, here is the unhappy end of it.
>
> I've written to Arista support and got the following dialogue:
> Support guy:
> Hi,
> Thank you for contacting Arista Support. My name is  and I'll be
> assisting you on this case.
> Could you please provide the "show version" output from this switch?
>
> Me:
> Hi,
> Here it is:
> 
>
> Support guy:
> Hi,
> Thank you for the information.
> Unfortunately, we are unable to activate your 3rd party components. To
> ensure ongoing quality, Arista devices are designed to support only
> properly qualified transceivers.
> Please let me know if you have any other questions.
>
> Me:
> I do not understand,
> But there is a command which allows using non-Arista transceivers. Why
> have you implemented it but don't provide an access key to your customers
> when they ask for it?
> If it is required to sign some papers which declare that I am aware of all
> the risks and losing my warranty - I agree with that, lets do it. Any way
> what are the conditions to receive that access key?
>
> Support guy:
> I'm afraid that there is nothing I'm able to do regarding this situation.
> If you have any other questions regarding enabling 3rd party options in
> Arista switches, I suggest to contact your local account team (or sales)
> for further discussion on this matter.
>
>
> Next, i've tried inserting various QSFP+ DAC cables I have - none of them
> has been even detected on the switch, it was acting like nothing has been
> inserted. I guess that even if I get the key, most of my transceivers/DAC
> (which work like a champ in Juniper or Extreme switches) cables wouldnt
> work.
>
> I'm writing this post to make somebody who considers buying their switches
> be aware of what they'd get. Just buy Juniper instead.
>
>
>
> Stanislaw wrote at 2016-08-17 23:25:
>
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> Thanks for your expressive answer. Will try it :)
>>
>> Tim Jackson писал 2016-08-17 22:57:
>>
>> I'd suggest bitching and moaning at your account team & support until
>>> they give you the key to unlock them..
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Stanislaw  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
 Is there a way for unlocking off-brand transceivers usage on Arista
 switches?

 I've got an Arista 7050QX switch with 4.14 EOS version. Then it has
 been found out that Arista switches seem to not have possibility to unlock
 off-brand xcievers usage (by some service command or so).

 I've patched /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/XcvrAgent.py, made the
 checking function bypass the actual check and it helped: ports are not in
 errdisable state anymore. But despite of xceivers are detected correctly,
 links aren't coming up (they are in notconnect state).

 If anyone possibly have does have a sacred knowledge of bringing
 off-branded transceivers to life on Arista switches, your help'd be very
 appreciated. Thanks.

>>>

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Tim Jackson]

On Aug 18, 2016 7:42 AM, "Nick Hilliard"  wrote:
> It is always better to clarify this sort of thing with the account
> management team before purchasing, and preferably have it in email or
> writing.

Sometimes you inherit bad situations...

The (bad) solution is to program your own optics to match Arista ones so
their switches can't tell the difference.. It's not hard, but a lot of the
time it's out of the normal reach of a lot of customers.

Flexoptix fixed that problem, but they're still priced way too high vs the
OEMs that supply to them..

It's still terribly frustrating to deal with this issue in 2016. It's a
desperate money grab from less informed customers.

Arista should really stop this bad practice. I'd urge anybody buying any
gear to make sure it can accept any optic meeting whatever MSA standard
optics that it's able to have plugged into it.

--
Tim

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[John A. Kilpatrick]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Nick Hilliard wrote:


It is always better to clarify this sort of thing with the account
management team before purchasing, and preferably have it in email or
writing.


Exactly.  Especially if you already have optics vendors that you like. 
I would bake that into the eval.


--
   John A. Kilpatrick
j...@hypergeek.net | http://www.hypergeek.net/
 remember:  no obstacles/only challenges

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Eric Kuhnke]

I would like to see optics made in a shack in a rain forest, maybe we can
find a new market to sell hand made artisanal fair trade organic GMO-free
gluten-free lasers.




On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Ricky Beam  wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:05:30 -0400, Tim Jackson 
> wrote:
>
>> "As I'm sure you know, Arista is not the only manufacturer that has made
>> this choice. Unlike our competition, we work to make our optics pricing
>> competitive, but we'll never be as low as the "Taiwan specials" that you
>> see floating around. I have another customer that was flashing white label
>> optics that just made the decision to start using Arista labeled optics
>> again because they were tired of bad quality."
>>
>
> I can't count the number of times I've seen this BS from vendors. I'm not
> buying crap made in a shack out in a rain forest. I'm buying the same f'ing
> optics from the same f'ing people as the vendor. (Finisar, Infineon, etc.)
> The only difference between my $10 optic and their $300 optic is the value
> in an EEPROM and the logo on the label.
>
> (I know from experience, the numbers on the price sheet are inflated so
> sales can maintain the illusion of "deep customer discounts". As the saying
> goes, only an idiot pays list price.)
>

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Alain Hebert]

Well,


Context: Starting with 10Gb the optics are more finicky.


Part of that price hike include tech support (1) which you will
never get from most OEM vendor.  PS: Mine is pretty good.


Having dealt with a few optic issues lately:

. Why that 10km LR won't work with that circuit, oh its a 8.5km
+ fusion + etc, your cutting it a bit short there bud, replaced them by ER's

( Cost: 3 weeks lag on delivery and ~10h )

. Why is that XFP ain't working in those x450, oh its a power
issue :(

( Cost: 6h, delivery was no issue )

But the question remains, does $290 is over charging it for that
type of insurance.


PS: Approaching  those issue logically with less Trumpish hyperbole
make more sense, almost as much as the Juniper pricing with their 78%+
discounts off their official pricelist =D


-
Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net   
PubNIX Inc.
50 boul. St-Charles
P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7
Tel: 514-990-5911  http://www.pubnix.netFax: 514-990-9443

On 08/18/16 21:59, Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:05:30 -0400, Tim Jackson
>  wrote:
>> "As I'm sure you know, Arista is not the only manufacturer that has made
>> this choice. Unlike our competition, we work to make our optics pricing
>> competitive, but we'll never be as low as the "Taiwan specials" that you
>> see floating around. I have another customer that was flashing white
>> label
>> optics that just made the decision to start using Arista labeled optics
>> again because they were tired of bad quality."
>
> I can't count the number of times I've seen this BS from vendors. I'm
> not buying crap made in a shack out in a rain forest. I'm buying the
> same f'ing optics from the same f'ing people as the vendor. (Finisar,
> Infineon, etc.) The only difference between my $10 optic and their
> $300 optic is the value in an EEPROM and the logo on the label.
>
> (I know from experience, the numbers on the price sheet are inflated
> so sales can maintain the illusion of "deep customer discounts". As
> the saying goes, only an idiot pays list price.)
>

RE: Arista unqualified SFP

[Ryan DiRocco]

I wouldn't be surprised to see GOV contracts in that list :) It's the new 
$10,000 toilet seat to fund black ops!


From: NANOG [nanog-boun...@nanog.org] on behalf of Eric Kuhnke 
[eric.kuh...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 10:41 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Arista unqualified SFP

Though it would be really interesting to see, if a company like Cisco or
Juniper ever suffered a major data leak, what number of customers really do
pay full list price for some stuff.

"Yeppers, twenty 1310nm LX 10Gb SFP+ for $4800 each, sounds good. Where do
we send the check?"



On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Ricky Beam <jfb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:05:30 -0400, Tim Jackson <jackson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "As I'm sure you know, Arista is not the only manufacturer that has made
>> this choice. Unlike our competition, we work to make our optics pricing
>> competitive, but we'll never be as low as the "Taiwan specials" that you
>> see floating around. I have another customer that was flashing white label
>> optics that just made the decision to start using Arista labeled optics
>> again because they were tired of bad quality."
>>
>
> I can't count the number of times I've seen this BS from vendors. I'm not
> buying crap made in a shack out in a rain forest. I'm buying the same f'ing
> optics from the same f'ing people as the vendor. (Finisar, Infineon, etc.)
> The only difference between my $10 optic and their $300 optic is the value
> in an EEPROM and the logo on the label.
>
> (I know from experience, the numbers on the price sheet are inflated so
> sales can maintain the illusion of "deep customer discounts". As the saying
> goes, only an idiot pays list price.)
>

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Eric Kuhnke]

Though it would be really interesting to see, if a company like Cisco or
Juniper ever suffered a major data leak, what number of customers really do
pay full list price for some stuff.

"Yeppers, twenty 1310nm LX 10Gb SFP+ for $4800 each, sounds good. Where do
we send the check?"



On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Ricky Beam  wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:05:30 -0400, Tim Jackson 
> wrote:
>
>> "As I'm sure you know, Arista is not the only manufacturer that has made
>> this choice. Unlike our competition, we work to make our optics pricing
>> competitive, but we'll never be as low as the "Taiwan specials" that you
>> see floating around. I have another customer that was flashing white label
>> optics that just made the decision to start using Arista labeled optics
>> again because they were tired of bad quality."
>>
>
> I can't count the number of times I've seen this BS from vendors. I'm not
> buying crap made in a shack out in a rain forest. I'm buying the same f'ing
> optics from the same f'ing people as the vendor. (Finisar, Infineon, etc.)
> The only difference between my $10 optic and their $300 optic is the value
> in an EEPROM and the logo on the label.
>
> (I know from experience, the numbers on the price sheet are inflated so
> sales can maintain the illusion of "deep customer discounts". As the saying
> goes, only an idiot pays list price.)
>

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Ricky Beam]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:05:30 -0400, Tim Jackson   
wrote:

"As I'm sure you know, Arista is not the only manufacturer that has made
this choice. Unlike our competition, we work to make our optics pricing
competitive, but we'll never be as low as the "Taiwan specials" that you
see floating around. I have another customer that was flashing white  
label

optics that just made the decision to start using Arista labeled optics
again because they were tired of bad quality."


I can't count the number of times I've seen this BS from vendors. I'm not  
buying crap made in a shack out in a rain forest. I'm buying the same  
f'ing optics from the same f'ing people as the vendor. (Finisar, Infineon,  
etc.) The only difference between my $10 optic and their $300 optic is the  
value in an EEPROM and the logo on the label.


(I know from experience, the numbers on the price sheet are inflated so  
sales can maintain the illusion of "deep customer discounts". As the  
saying goes, only an idiot pays list price.)

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Stanislaw]

Yeah, it is.
And yeah, I was considering that option too.

Ethan писал 2016-08-18 16:59:

I think someone from Arista said...
"We are never going to lose an affair due to not supporting 3-d party 
optics, but we will try to convince the customer to buy our stuff, 
since that's what we do, we sell stuff".
In these cheap arista switches, filling them with optics (if the 
optics is from ANET themselves) is usually the same cost as buying 
like five switches, so of course they want a share of that and they 
will try to convince you that 3rd party optics will make the switch go 
up in flames etc etc.

So its kinda easy... just present three choices.


Arista is an x86 Fedora box right?

Get someone to make a keygen.

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Ethan]

I think someone from Arista said...
"We are never going to lose an affair due to not supporting 3-d party optics, but we 
will try to convince the customer to buy our stuff, since that's what we do, we sell 
stuff".
In these cheap arista switches, filling them with optics (if the optics is from 
ANET themselves) is usually the same cost as buying like five switches, so of 
course they want a share of that and they will try to convince you that 3rd 
party optics will make the switch go up in flames etc etc.
So its kinda easy... just present three choices.


Arista is an x86 Fedora box right?

Get someone to make a keygen.

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Ryan, Spencer]

All of our X520's don't care if you use Arista or Proline DAC cables (the two 
brands we have around).


Spencer Ryan | Senior Systems Administrator | 
sr...@arbor.net<mailto:sr...@arbor.net>
Arbor Networks
+1.734.794.5033 (d) | +1.734.846.2053 (m)
www.arbornetworks.com<http://www.arbornetworks.com/>



From: NANOG <nanog-boun...@nanog.org> on behalf of Ryan DiRocco 
<ryan.diro...@totalserversolutions.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 9:49:14 AM
To: Mikael Abrahamsson; Mark Tinka
Cc: nanog list
Subject: RE: Arista unqualified SFP

If you are running Intel NIC(s) such as the X520-DA2 with 3rd party optics for 
something like DWDM, there are driver option flags for linux/windows, etc to 
permit the use of the optics. In deployments we've used various branded dac 
cables to connect Intel branded nics to cisco/arista/brocade, without issue.

As with any vendor, there is a work around procedure.

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mikael Abrahamsson
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 8:33 AM
To: Mark Tinka
Cc: nanog list
Subject: Re: Arista unqualified SFP

On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Mark Tinka wrote:

> All other vendors, explicitly or silently, adopt the same approach.

I've heard from people running Intel NICs and HP switches, that this can't be 
turned off there. You run into very interesting problems when you're trying to 
use DAC cables between multi vendor.

Any pointers to how to turn this of on Intel NICs and HP switches?

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

RE: Arista unqualified SFP

[Ryan DiRocco]

If you are running Intel NIC(s) such as the X520-DA2 with 3rd party optics for 
something like DWDM, there are driver option flags for linux/windows, etc to 
permit the use of the optics. In deployments we've used various branded dac 
cables to connect Intel branded nics to cisco/arista/brocade, without issue.

As with any vendor, there is a work around procedure. 

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mikael Abrahamsson
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 8:33 AM
To: Mark Tinka
Cc: nanog list
Subject: Re: Arista unqualified SFP

On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Mark Tinka wrote:

> All other vendors, explicitly or silently, adopt the same approach.

I've heard from people running Intel NICs and HP switches, that this can't be 
turned off there. You run into very interesting problems when you're trying to 
use DAC cables between multi vendor.

Any pointers to how to turn this of on Intel NICs and HP switches?

-- 
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Denys Fedoryshchenko]

No, this driver patch (or similar) wont work on new model.
But honestly, on my experience, X520 perform still better than 710 
series on 10G links.


https://sourceforge.net/p/e1000/mailman/message/34991760/
From: Wesley W. Terpstra <wesley@te...> - 2016-04-03 14:03:52
He did unlocked by modifying NVM in card(and i guess losing warranty, 
for sure)
Somehow it is even better, because X520 needed modification of driver, 
and that is not possible on "blackbox" software solutions using them.


On 2016-08-18 15:55, Mike Hammett wrote:

https://sourceforge.net/p/e1000/mailman/message/28698959/

That or similar doesn't work for that model?




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP

- Original Message -

From: "Denys Fedoryshchenko" <de...@visp.net.lb>
To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net>
Cc: "NANOG Mailing List" <nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 7:51:13 AM
Subject: Re: Arista unqualified SFP

Not a case with Intel X*710 new chipset, check is in firmware.
Someone hacked it, but ...

On 2016-08-18 15:41, Mike Hammett wrote:

Intel does allow DAC of any vendor (assuming they properly identify as
DACs. You can also disable Intel's check in the Linux drivers.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP

- Original Message -

From: "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swm...@swm.pp.se>
To: "Mark Tinka" <mark.ti...@seacom.mu>
Cc: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 7:32:55 AM
Subject: Re: Arista unqualified SFP

On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Mark Tinka wrote:


All other vendors, explicitly or silently, adopt the same approach.


I've heard from people running Intel NICs and HP switches, that this
can't
be turned off there. You run into very interesting problems when 
you're

trying to use DAC cables between multi vendor.

Any pointers to how to turn this of on Intel NICs and HP switches?

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Fredrik Korsbäck]

On 18/08/16 14:45, Mark Tinka wrote:
> 
> 
> On 18/Aug/16 14:42, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> 
>>
>> It is always better to clarify this sort of thing with the account
>> management team before purchasing, and preferably have it in email or
>> writing.  After that, the best approach is to ask support and/or account
>> management nicely rather than "bitching and moaning" as someone else
>> suggested - diplomacy is usually a better long term basis for having a
>> good relationship with your vendor.  Often it's useful to point out
>> discussions like this which indicate that it's been enabled for other
>> people.
> 
> +1.
> 
> We politely said to Arista, "We like your box, but we're afraid that if
> we can't use our existing optics, we'd all miss out on a good
> opportunity working together".
> 
> That did the job.
> 
> Mark.
> 

I think someone from Arista said...

"We are never going to lose an affair due to not supporting 3-d party optics, 
but we will try to convince the customer to buy our stuff, since that's what we 
do, we sell stuff".

In these cheap arista switches, filling them with optics (if the optics is from 
ANET themselves) is usually the same cost as buying like five switches, so of 
course they want a share of that and they will try to convince you that 3rd 
party optics will make the switch go up in flames etc etc.

So its kinda easy... just present three choices.

1. Arista Switch + Arista Optics (at the same price as your favourite 3rd party 
vendor)
2. Arista Switch + 3rd party optics
3. No Arista switch.

I know which one you are gonna get.

-- 
hugge

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Mike Hammett]

https://sourceforge.net/p/e1000/mailman/message/28698959/ 

That or similar doesn't work for that model? 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Denys Fedoryshchenko" <de...@visp.net.lb> 
To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net> 
Cc: "NANOG Mailing List" <nanog@nanog.org> 
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 7:51:13 AM 
Subject: Re: Arista unqualified SFP 

Not a case with Intel X*710 new chipset, check is in firmware. 
Someone hacked it, but ... 

On 2016-08-18 15:41, Mike Hammett wrote: 
> Intel does allow DAC of any vendor (assuming they properly identify as 
> DACs. You can also disable Intel's check in the Linux drivers. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> 
> From: "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swm...@swm.pp.se> 
> To: "Mark Tinka" <mark.ti...@seacom.mu> 
> Cc: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org> 
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 7:32:55 AM 
> Subject: Re: Arista unqualified SFP 
> 
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Mark Tinka wrote: 
> 
>> All other vendors, explicitly or silently, adopt the same approach. 
> 
> I've heard from people running Intel NICs and HP switches, that this 
> can't 
> be turned off there. You run into very interesting problems when you're 
> trying to use DAC cables between multi vendor. 
> 
> Any pointers to how to turn this of on Intel NICs and HP switches? 

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Denys Fedoryshchenko]

Not a case with Intel X*710 new chipset, check is in firmware.
Someone hacked it, but ...

On 2016-08-18 15:41, Mike Hammett wrote:

Intel does allow DAC of any vendor (assuming they properly identify as
DACs. You can also disable Intel's check in the Linux drivers.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP

- Original Message -

From: "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swm...@swm.pp.se>
To: "Mark Tinka" <mark.ti...@seacom.mu>
Cc: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 7:32:55 AM
Subject: Re: Arista unqualified SFP

On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Mark Tinka wrote:


All other vendors, explicitly or silently, adopt the same approach.


I've heard from people running Intel NICs and HP switches, that this 
can't

be turned off there. You run into very interesting problems when you're
trying to use DAC cables between multi vendor.

Any pointers to how to turn this of on Intel NICs and HP switches?

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Nick Hilliard]

Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> Any pointers to how to turn this of on Intel NICs and HP switches?

Yes: don't buy Intel NICs or HP switches.

Problem solved.

Nick

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Mark Tinka]

On 18/Aug/16 14:42, Nick Hilliard wrote:

>
> It is always better to clarify this sort of thing with the account
> management team before purchasing, and preferably have it in email or
> writing.  After that, the best approach is to ask support and/or account
> management nicely rather than "bitching and moaning" as someone else
> suggested - diplomacy is usually a better long term basis for having a
> good relationship with your vendor.  Often it's useful to point out
> discussions like this which indicate that it's been enabled for other
> people.

+1.

We politely said to Arista, "We like your box, but we're afraid that if
we can't use our existing optics, we'd all miss out on a good
opportunity working together".

That did the job.

Mark.

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Nick Hilliard]

Tim Jackson wrote:
> "As I'm sure you know, Arista is not the only manufacturer that has made
> this choice. Unlike our competition, we work to make our optics pricing
> competitive, but we'll never be as low as the "Taiwan specials" that you
> see floating around. I have another customer that was flashing white label
> optics that just made the decision to start using Arista labeled optics
> again because they were tired of bad quality."
> 
> They basically said we'll sell you 10x priced optics instead of 100x and
> we're awesome because we do that. No unlock for you, buy our slightly
> cheaper OEM optics instead.

Nothing specific to Arista or anything, but this is a terribly
frustrating position to be in as a customer, when you want to e.g. use
some transceiver which isn't supported by the vendor or connect up
Vendor A's switch to Vendor B's switch using a DAC or something.
Ultimately one side needs to give in because vendor DACs are coded one
way or the other.

It is always better to clarify this sort of thing with the account
management team before purchasing, and preferably have it in email or
writing.  After that, the best approach is to ask support and/or account
management nicely rather than "bitching and moaning" as someone else
suggested - diplomacy is usually a better long term basis for having a
good relationship with your vendor.  Often it's useful to point out
discussions like this which indicate that it's been enabled for other
people.

Nick

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Mike Hammett]

Intel does allow DAC of any vendor (assuming they properly identify as DACs. 
You can also disable Intel's check in the Linux drivers. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swm...@swm.pp.se> 
To: "Mark Tinka" <mark.ti...@seacom.mu> 
Cc: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org> 
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 7:32:55 AM 
Subject: Re: Arista unqualified SFP 

On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Mark Tinka wrote: 

> All other vendors, explicitly or silently, adopt the same approach. 

I've heard from people running Intel NICs and HP switches, that this can't 
be turned off there. You run into very interesting problems when you're 
trying to use DAC cables between multi vendor. 

Any pointers to how to turn this of on Intel NICs and HP switches? 

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se 

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Mark Tinka wrote:


All other vendors, explicitly or silently, adopt the same approach.


I've heard from people running Intel NICs and HP switches, that this can't 
be turned off there. You run into very interesting problems when you're 
trying to use DAC cables between multi vendor.


Any pointers to how to turn this of on Intel NICs and HP switches?

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr]

2016-08-18 13:47 GMT+02:00 Mark Tinka :

>
>
> On 18/Aug/16 13:41, Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> At my actual job, some colleagues bought Arista switchs very recently. They 
> asked the question about 3rd party transceivers and their SE told them 
> exactly what has been said before :
>
> "we do accept 3rd party transceivers but we don't support them. If you still 
> want to use them willingly, you'll have to sign a discharge paper and we'll 
> provide you with a key to activate on your equipement".
>
> That's Arista's official policy regarding 3rd party transceivers.
>
>
> I am fine with that.
>
> All other vendors, explicitly or silently, adopt the same approach.
>
> Mark.
>


+1. At least they have a policy that they fully assume publically, which is
more than others can say/do.

Best regards.


-- 
Youssef BENGELLOUN-ZAHR

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Mark Tinka]

On 18/Aug/16 14:05, Tim Jackson wrote:


> That's not the answer I got at all from Arista:
>
> "I understand that Arista TAC indicated that  could provide you
> with a transceiver unlock code. While it is true that the unlock code
> concept exists, it is very unusual for us to unlock optics on
> switches. We’d be happy to talk with you further about this in person. "
>
> Followup was:
>
> "As I'm sure you know, Arista is not the only manufacturer that has
> made this choice. Unlike our competition, we work to make our optics
> pricing competitive, but we'll never be as low as the "Taiwan
> specials" that you see floating around. I have another customer that
> was flashing white label optics that just made the decision to start
> using Arista labeled optics again because they were tired of bad quality."
>
> They basically said we'll sell you 10x priced optics instead of 100x
> and we're awesome because we do that. No unlock for you, buy our
> slightly cheaper OEM optics instead.

So the bottom line is that not all AM's are built the same.

Some are nice, some are not. Some are enthusiastic, some are docile.
Some are self-motivated, some need a fire lit underneath them.

My advice, tell them you'll take your business elsewhere if they don't
come to the table. If that does not work, request for another AM. If
that doesn't work, escalate to the sales head. If that doesn't work,
look for another Arista sales office in some other region.

If all that fails, move on to another vendor - although I doubt it will
get to that point before someone within Arista is screamed at. Of
course, there's always Twitter :-)...

Mark.

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Mark Tinka]

On 18/Aug/16 13:47, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:

> Same here, i was considering Arista, because they are quite cost
> effective,feature rich, interesting hardware for developing some
> custom solutions. But no more, after reading about unreasonable vendor
> lock-in.
> But such inflexibility are very bad sign, this "openness" looks like
> marketing only, under the hood it seems worse than other solutions on
> market. Also when support shows such inflexibility, it is very bad
> sign. And very sad.

Don't be too hasty. See my response earlier.

Mark.

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Tim Jackson]

>
> Your AM team will gladly unlock this for you.
>
> This is probably just a procedural issue with Arista TAC not knowing the
> secret sauce.



That's not the answer I got at all from Arista:

"I understand that Arista TAC indicated that  could provide you with a
transceiver unlock code. While it is true that the unlock code concept
exists, it is very unusual for us to unlock optics on switches. We’d be
happy to talk with you further about this in person. "

Followup was:

"As I'm sure you know, Arista is not the only manufacturer that has made
this choice. Unlike our competition, we work to make our optics pricing
competitive, but we'll never be as low as the "Taiwan specials" that you
see floating around. I have another customer that was flashing white label
optics that just made the decision to start using Arista labeled optics
again because they were tired of bad quality."

They basically said we'll sell you 10x priced optics instead of 100x and
we're awesome because we do that. No unlock for you, buy our slightly
cheaper OEM optics instead.

--
Tim

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Mark Tinka]

On 18/Aug/16 13:41, Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> At my actual job, some colleagues bought Arista switchs very recently. They 
> asked the question about 3rd party transceivers and their SE told them 
> exactly what has been said before :
>
> "we do accept 3rd party transceivers but we don't support them. If you still 
> want to use them willingly, you'll have to sign a discharge paper and we'll 
> provide you with a key to activate on your equipement".
>
> That's Arista's official policy regarding 3rd party transceivers.

I am fine with that.

All other vendors, explicitly or silently, adopt the same approach.

Mark.

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Fredrik Korsbäck]

On 18/08/16 13:29, Dovid Bender wrote:
> And I was about to jump on to the Arista train.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dovid
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Stanislaw <m...@nek0.net>
> Sender: "NANOG" <nanog-boun...@nanog.org>Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 13:24:05 
> To: nanog list<nanog@nanog.org>
> Subject: Re: Arista unqualified SFP
> 
> Hi all,
> If somebody is following my epic adventure of getting uqualified SFP to 
> work on Aristas, here is the unhappy end of it.
> 
> I've written to Arista support and got the following dialogue:
> Support guy:
> Hi,
> Thank you for contacting Arista Support. My name is  and I'll be 
> assisting you on this case.
> Could you please provide the "show version" output from this switch?
> 
> Me:
> Hi,
> Here it is:
> 
> 
> Support guy:
> Hi,
> Thank you for the information.
> Unfortunately, we are unable to activate your 3rd party components. To 
> ensure ongoing quality, Arista devices are designed to support only 
> properly qualified transceivers.
> Please let me know if you have any other questions.
> 
> Me:
> I do not understand,
> But there is a command which allows using non-Arista transceivers. Why 
> have you implemented it but don't provide an access key to your 
> customers when they ask for it?
> If it is required to sign some papers which declare that I am aware of 
> all the risks and losing my warranty - I agree with that, lets do it. 
> Any way what are the conditions to receive that access key?
> 
> Support guy:
> I'm afraid that there is nothing I'm able to do regarding this 
> situation. If you have any other questions regarding enabling 3rd party 
> options in Arista switches, I suggest to contact your local account team 
> (or sales) for further discussion on this matter.
> 

So. Since when does one handle a business-decisions with the TAC? handing out 
the key means that ANET will not never ever be able to sell you any optics, 
because that's how it works when you ride on the 3rd party optics train. Also 
the TAC need to be flagged to ignore non-official transcievers when sending in 
your issues so they know they don't have to bitch about that.

Id suggest you call your SE/TAM instead of TAC for this.

Or buy something where you can brand the EEPROM with something more appropriate 
that a ANET-switch like

-- 
hugge

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Denys Fedoryshchenko]

Same here, i was considering Arista, because they are quite cost 
effective,feature rich, interesting hardware for developing some custom 
solutions. But no more, after reading about unreasonable vendor lock-in.
But such inflexibility are very bad sign, this "openness" looks like 
marketing only, under the hood it seems worse than other solutions on 
market. Also when support shows such inflexibility, it is very bad sign. 
And very sad.



On 2016-08-18 14:29, Dovid Bender wrote:

And I was about to jump on to the Arista train.

Regards,

Dovid

-Original Message-
From: Stanislaw <m...@nek0.net>
Sender: "NANOG" <nanog-boun...@nanog.org>Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 
13:24:05

To: nanog list<nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Arista unqualified SFP

Hi all,
If somebody is following my epic adventure of getting uqualified SFP to
work on Aristas, here is the unhappy end of it.

I've written to Arista support and got the following dialogue:
Support guy:
Hi,
Thank you for contacting Arista Support. My name is  and I'll be
assisting you on this case.
Could you please provide the "show version" output from this switch?

Me:
Hi,
Here it is:


Support guy:
Hi,
Thank you for the information.
Unfortunately, we are unable to activate your 3rd party components. To
ensure ongoing quality, Arista devices are designed to support only
properly qualified transceivers.
Please let me know if you have any other questions.

Me:
I do not understand,
But there is a command which allows using non-Arista transceivers. Why
have you implemented it but don't provide an access key to your
customers when they ask for it?
If it is required to sign some papers which declare that I am aware of
all the risks and losing my warranty - I agree with that, lets do it.
Any way what are the conditions to receive that access key?

Support guy:
I'm afraid that there is nothing I'm able to do regarding this
situation. If you have any other questions regarding enabling 3rd party
options in Arista switches, I suggest to contact your local account 
team

(or sales) for further discussion on this matter.


Next, i've tried inserting various QSFP+ DAC cables I have - none of
them has been even detected on the switch, it was acting like nothing
has been inserted. I guess that even if I get the key, most of my
transceivers/DAC (which work like a champ in Juniper or Extreme
switches) cables wouldnt work.

I'm writing this post to make somebody who considers buying their
switches be aware of what they'd get. Just buy Juniper instead.


Stanislaw wrote at 2016-08-17 23:25:

Hi Tim,

Thanks for your expressive answer. Will try it :)

Tim Jackson писал 2016-08-17 22:57:


I'd suggest bitching and moaning at your account team & support until
they give you the key to unlock them..

--
Tim

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Stanislaw <m...@nek0.net> wrote:


Hi all,
Is there a way for unlocking off-brand transceivers usage on Arista
switches?

I've got an Arista 7050QX switch with 4.14 EOS version. Then it has
been found out that Arista switches seem to not have possibility to
unlock off-brand xcievers usage (by some service command or so).

I've patched /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/XcvrAgent.py, made the
checking function bypass the actual check and it helped: ports are
not in errdisable state anymore. But despite of xceivers are 
detected

correctly, links aren't coming up (they are in notconnect state).

If anyone possibly have does have a sacred knowledge of bringing
off-branded transceivers to life on Arista switches, your help'd be
very appreciated. Thanks.

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Mark Tinka]

On 18/Aug/16 13:29, Dovid Bender wrote:

> And I was about to jump on to the Arista train.

Your AM team will gladly unlock this for you.

This is probably just a procedural issue with Arista TAC not knowing the
secret sauce.

Mark.

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Youssef Bengelloun-Zahr]

Hello all,

At my actual job, some colleagues bought Arista switchs very recently. They 
asked the question about 3rd party transceivers and their SE told them exactly 
what has been said before :

"we do accept 3rd party transceivers but we don't support them. If you still 
want to use them willingly, you'll have to sign a discharge paper and we'll 
provide you with a key to activate on your equipement".

That's Arista's official policy regarding 3rd party transceivers.

HTH.

BR.



> Le 18 août 2016 à 13:29, Dovid Bender <do...@telecurve.com> a écrit :
> 
> And I was about to jump on to the Arista train.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dovid
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Stanislaw <m...@nek0.net>
> Sender: "NANOG" <nanog-boun...@nanog.org>Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 13:24:05 
> To: nanog list<nanog@nanog.org>
> Subject: Re: Arista unqualified SFP
> 
> Hi all,
> If somebody is following my epic adventure of getting uqualified SFP to 
> work on Aristas, here is the unhappy end of it.
> 
> I've written to Arista support and got the following dialogue:
> Support guy:
> Hi,
> Thank you for contacting Arista Support. My name is  and I'll be 
> assisting you on this case.
> Could you please provide the "show version" output from this switch?
> 
> Me:
> Hi,
> Here it is:
> 
> 
> Support guy:
> Hi,
> Thank you for the information.
> Unfortunately, we are unable to activate your 3rd party components. To 
> ensure ongoing quality, Arista devices are designed to support only 
> properly qualified transceivers.
> Please let me know if you have any other questions.
> 
> Me:
> I do not understand,
> But there is a command which allows using non-Arista transceivers. Why 
> have you implemented it but don't provide an access key to your 
> customers when they ask for it?
> If it is required to sign some papers which declare that I am aware of 
> all the risks and losing my warranty - I agree with that, lets do it. 
> Any way what are the conditions to receive that access key?
> 
> Support guy:
> I'm afraid that there is nothing I'm able to do regarding this 
> situation. If you have any other questions regarding enabling 3rd party 
> options in Arista switches, I suggest to contact your local account team 
> (or sales) for further discussion on this matter.
> 
> 
> Next, i've tried inserting various QSFP+ DAC cables I have - none of 
> them has been even detected on the switch, it was acting like nothing 
> has been inserted. I guess that even if I get the key, most of my 
> transceivers/DAC (which work like a champ in Juniper or Extreme 
> switches) cables wouldnt work.
> 
> I'm writing this post to make somebody who considers buying their 
> switches be aware of what they'd get. Just buy Juniper instead.
> 
> 
> Stanislaw wrote at 2016-08-17 23:25:
>> Hi Tim,
>> 
>> Thanks for your expressive answer. Will try it :)
>> 
>> Tim Jackson писал 2016-08-17 22:57:
>> 
>>> I'd suggest bitching and moaning at your account team & support until 
>>> they give you the key to unlock them..
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Tim
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Stanislaw <m...@nek0.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> Is there a way for unlocking off-brand transceivers usage on Arista 
>>>> switches?
>>>> 
>>>> I've got an Arista 7050QX switch with 4.14 EOS version. Then it has 
>>>> been found out that Arista switches seem to not have possibility to 
>>>> unlock off-brand xcievers usage (by some service command or so).
>>>> 
>>>> I've patched /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/XcvrAgent.py, made the 
>>>> checking function bypass the actual check and it helped: ports are 
>>>> not in errdisable state anymore. But despite of xceivers are detected 
>>>> correctly, links aren't coming up (they are in notconnect state).
>>>> 
>>>> If anyone possibly have does have a sacred knowledge of bringing 
>>>> off-branded transceivers to life on Arista switches, your help'd be 
>>>> very appreciated. Thanks.

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Dovid Bender]

And I was about to jump on to the Arista train.

Regards,

Dovid

-Original Message-
From: Stanislaw <m...@nek0.net>
Sender: "NANOG" <nanog-boun...@nanog.org>Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 13:24:05 
To: nanog list<nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Arista unqualified SFP

Hi all,
If somebody is following my epic adventure of getting uqualified SFP to 
work on Aristas, here is the unhappy end of it.

I've written to Arista support and got the following dialogue:
Support guy:
Hi,
Thank you for contacting Arista Support. My name is  and I'll be 
assisting you on this case.
Could you please provide the "show version" output from this switch?

Me:
Hi,
Here it is:


Support guy:
Hi,
Thank you for the information.
Unfortunately, we are unable to activate your 3rd party components. To 
ensure ongoing quality, Arista devices are designed to support only 
properly qualified transceivers.
Please let me know if you have any other questions.

Me:
I do not understand,
But there is a command which allows using non-Arista transceivers. Why 
have you implemented it but don't provide an access key to your 
customers when they ask for it?
If it is required to sign some papers which declare that I am aware of 
all the risks and losing my warranty - I agree with that, lets do it. 
Any way what are the conditions to receive that access key?

Support guy:
I'm afraid that there is nothing I'm able to do regarding this 
situation. If you have any other questions regarding enabling 3rd party 
options in Arista switches, I suggest to contact your local account team 
(or sales) for further discussion on this matter.


Next, i've tried inserting various QSFP+ DAC cables I have - none of 
them has been even detected on the switch, it was acting like nothing 
has been inserted. I guess that even if I get the key, most of my 
transceivers/DAC (which work like a champ in Juniper or Extreme 
switches) cables wouldnt work.

I'm writing this post to make somebody who considers buying their 
switches be aware of what they'd get. Just buy Juniper instead.


Stanislaw wrote at 2016-08-17 23:25:
> Hi Tim,
> 
> Thanks for your expressive answer. Will try it :)
> 
> Tim Jackson писал 2016-08-17 22:57:
> 
>> I'd suggest bitching and moaning at your account team & support until 
>> they give you the key to unlock them..
>> 
>> --
>> Tim
>> 
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Stanislaw <m...@nek0.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> Is there a way for unlocking off-brand transceivers usage on Arista 
>>> switches?
>>> 
>>> I've got an Arista 7050QX switch with 4.14 EOS version. Then it has 
>>> been found out that Arista switches seem to not have possibility to 
>>> unlock off-brand xcievers usage (by some service command or so).
>>> 
>>> I've patched /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/XcvrAgent.py, made the 
>>> checking function bypass the actual check and it helped: ports are 
>>> not in errdisable state anymore. But despite of xceivers are detected 
>>> correctly, links aren't coming up (they are in notconnect state).
>>> 
>>> If anyone possibly have does have a sacred knowledge of bringing 
>>> off-branded transceivers to life on Arista switches, your help'd be 
>>> very appreciated. Thanks.

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Stanislaw]

Hi all,
If somebody is following my epic adventure of getting uqualified SFP to 
work on Aristas, here is the unhappy end of it.


I've written to Arista support and got the following dialogue:
Support guy:
Hi,
Thank you for contacting Arista Support. My name is  and I'll be 
assisting you on this case.

Could you please provide the "show version" output from this switch?

Me:
Hi,
Here it is:


Support guy:
Hi,
Thank you for the information.
Unfortunately, we are unable to activate your 3rd party components. To 
ensure ongoing quality, Arista devices are designed to support only 
properly qualified transceivers.

Please let me know if you have any other questions.

Me:
I do not understand,
But there is a command which allows using non-Arista transceivers. Why 
have you implemented it but don't provide an access key to your 
customers when they ask for it?
If it is required to sign some papers which declare that I am aware of 
all the risks and losing my warranty - I agree with that, lets do it. 
Any way what are the conditions to receive that access key?


Support guy:
I'm afraid that there is nothing I'm able to do regarding this 
situation. If you have any other questions regarding enabling 3rd party 
options in Arista switches, I suggest to contact your local account team 
(or sales) for further discussion on this matter.



Next, i've tried inserting various QSFP+ DAC cables I have - none of 
them has been even detected on the switch, it was acting like nothing 
has been inserted. I guess that even if I get the key, most of my 
transceivers/DAC (which work like a champ in Juniper or Extreme 
switches) cables wouldnt work.


I'm writing this post to make somebody who considers buying their 
switches be aware of what they'd get. Just buy Juniper instead.



Stanislaw wrote at 2016-08-17 23:25:

Hi Tim,

Thanks for your expressive answer. Will try it :)

Tim Jackson писал 2016-08-17 22:57:

I'd suggest bitching and moaning at your account team & support until 
they give you the key to unlock them..


--
Tim

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Stanislaw  wrote:


Hi all,
Is there a way for unlocking off-brand transceivers usage on Arista 
switches?


I've got an Arista 7050QX switch with 4.14 EOS version. Then it has 
been found out that Arista switches seem to not have possibility to 
unlock off-brand xcievers usage (by some service command or so).


I've patched /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/XcvrAgent.py, made the 
checking function bypass the actual check and it helped: ports are 
not in errdisable state anymore. But despite of xceivers are detected 
correctly, links aren't coming up (they are in notconnect state).


If anyone possibly have does have a sacred knowledge of bringing 
off-branded transceivers to life on Arista switches, your help'd be 
very appreciated. Thanks.

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[David Hubbard]

We’ve done this as well, and Arista support hasn’t hassled us about anything 
yet so I’ve been pleased.  I’ve been very happy using Flexoptics transceivers 
in all kinds of equipment too, if anyone’s looking for something they know 
works, and you get a programmer that will let you code optics to certain 
vendors switches that don’t have unlock keys.  It won’t work on all though, so 
investigate before investing if that’s a concern.

David

On 8/17/16, 4:33 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Ryan DiRocco" 
<nanog-bounces+ispcolohost=gmail@nanog.org on behalf of 
ryan.diro...@totalserversolutions.com> wrote:

Exactly this, get your unlock key that is tied to your company and you are 
off to the races, bake it into your standard config.  Your SE or support team 
should be able to get this to you :)

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ryan, Spencer
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 3:53 PM
To: Stanislaw; nanog@nanog.org
    Subject: Re: Arista unqualified SFP

Yes, email support and ask for the unlock code, they will make you agree 
that you know that 3rd party optics may explode the switch and it's not their 
fault.


The command they give you will have a key/hash built into it (but will work 
on any switch) that ties the "unlock" to your org.


Ours looks like this:


service unsupported-transceiver DescriptionOfKeyFromAristaGoesHere 
00 (hex key)


Spencer Ryan | Senior Systems Administrator | 
sr...@arbor.net<mailto:sr...@arbor.net>
Arbor Networks
+1.734.794.5033 (d) | +1.734.846.2053 (m)
www.arbornetworks.com<http://www.arbornetworks.com/>



From: NANOG <nanog-boun...@nanog.org> on behalf of Stanislaw <m...@nek0.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 3:50:12 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Arista unqualified SFP

Hi all,
Is there a way for unlocking off-brand transceivers usage on Arista 
switches?

I've got an Arista 7050QX switch with 4.14 EOS version. Then it has been 
found out that Arista switches seem to not have possibility to unlock off-brand 
xcievers usage (by some service command or so).

I've patched /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/XcvrAgent.py, made the 
checking function bypass the actual check and it helped: ports are not in 
errdisable state anymore. But despite of xceivers are detected correctly, links 
aren't coming up (they are in notconnect state).

If anyone possibly have does have a sacred knowledge of bringing 
off-branded transceivers to life on Arista switches, your help'd be very 
appreciated. Thanks.

RE: Arista unqualified SFP

[Ryan DiRocco]

Exactly this, get your unlock key that is tied to your company and you are off 
to the races, bake it into your standard config.  Your SE or support team 
should be able to get this to you :)

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ryan, Spencer
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 3:53 PM
To: Stanislaw; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Arista unqualified SFP

Yes, email support and ask for the unlock code, they will make you agree that 
you know that 3rd party optics may explode the switch and it's not their fault.


The command they give you will have a key/hash built into it (but will work on 
any switch) that ties the "unlock" to your org.


Ours looks like this:


service unsupported-transceiver DescriptionOfKeyFromAristaGoesHere 00 
(hex key)


Spencer Ryan | Senior Systems Administrator | 
sr...@arbor.net<mailto:sr...@arbor.net>
Arbor Networks
+1.734.794.5033 (d) | +1.734.846.2053 (m)
www.arbornetworks.com<http://www.arbornetworks.com/>



From: NANOG <nanog-boun...@nanog.org> on behalf of Stanislaw <m...@nek0.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 3:50:12 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Arista unqualified SFP

Hi all,
Is there a way for unlocking off-brand transceivers usage on Arista switches?

I've got an Arista 7050QX switch with 4.14 EOS version. Then it has been found 
out that Arista switches seem to not have possibility to unlock off-brand 
xcievers usage (by some service command or so).

I've patched /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/XcvrAgent.py, made the checking 
function bypass the actual check and it helped: ports are not in errdisable 
state anymore. But despite of xceivers are detected correctly, links aren't 
coming up (they are in notconnect state).

If anyone possibly have does have a sacred knowledge of bringing off-branded 
transceivers to life on Arista switches, your help'd be very appreciated. 
Thanks.

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Stanislaw]

Hi Tim, 

Thanks for your expressive answer. Will try it :) 

Tim Jackson писал 2016-08-17 22:57:

> I'd suggest bitching and moaning at your account team & support until they 
> give you the key to unlock them..  
> 
> -- 
> Tim 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Stanislaw  wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>> Is there a way for unlocking off-brand transceivers usage on Arista switches?
>> 
>> I've got an Arista 7050QX switch with 4.14 EOS version. Then it has been 
>> found out that Arista switches seem to not have possibility to unlock 
>> off-brand xcievers usage (by some service command or so).
>> 
>> I've patched /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/XcvrAgent.py, made the 
>> checking function bypass the actual check and it helped: ports are not in 
>> errdisable state anymore. But despite of xceivers are detected correctly, 
>> links aren't coming up (they are in notconnect state).
>> 
>> If anyone possibly have does have a sacred knowledge of bringing off-branded 
>> transceivers to life on Arista switches, your help'd be very appreciated. 
>> Thanks.

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Eric Litvin]

Let me know if you want samples. We can ship today.

> On Aug 17, 2016, at 12:50 PM, Stanislaw  wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> Is there a way for unlocking off-brand transceivers usage on Arista switches?
> 
> I've got an Arista 7050QX switch with 4.14 EOS version. Then it has been 
> found out that Arista switches seem to not have possibility to unlock 
> off-brand xcievers usage (by some service command or so).
> 
> I've patched /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/XcvrAgent.py, made the checking 
> function bypass the actual check and it helped: ports are not in errdisable 
> state anymore. But despite of xceivers are detected correctly, links aren't 
> coming up (they are in notconnect state).
> 
> If anyone possibly have does have a sacred knowledge of bringing off-branded 
> transceivers to life on Arista switches, your help'd be very appreciated. 
> Thanks.

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Tim Jackson]

I'd suggest bitching and moaning at your account team & support until they
give you the key to unlock them..

--
Tim

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Stanislaw  wrote:

> Hi all,
> Is there a way for unlocking off-brand transceivers usage on Arista
> switches?
>
> I've got an Arista 7050QX switch with 4.14 EOS version. Then it has been
> found out that Arista switches seem to not have possibility to unlock
> off-brand xcievers usage (by some service command or so).
>
> I've patched /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/XcvrAgent.py, made the
> checking function bypass the actual check and it helped: ports are not in
> errdisable state anymore. But despite of xceivers are detected correctly,
> links aren't coming up (they are in notconnect state).
>
> If anyone possibly have does have a sacred knowledge of bringing
> off-branded transceivers to life on Arista switches, your help'd be very
> appreciated. Thanks.
>

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

[Ryan, Spencer]

Yes, email support and ask for the unlock code, they will make you agree that 
you know that 3rd party optics may explode the switch and it's not their fault.


The command they give you will have a key/hash built into it (but will work on 
any switch) that ties the "unlock" to your org.


Ours looks like this:


service unsupported-transceiver DescriptionOfKeyFromAristaGoesHere 00 
(hex key)


Spencer Ryan | Senior Systems Administrator | 
sr...@arbor.net<mailto:sr...@arbor.net>
Arbor Networks
+1.734.794.5033 (d) | +1.734.846.2053 (m)
www.arbornetworks.com<http://www.arbornetworks.com/>



From: NANOG <nanog-boun...@nanog.org> on behalf of Stanislaw <m...@nek0.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 3:50:12 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Arista unqualified SFP

Hi all,
Is there a way for unlocking off-brand transceivers usage on Arista
switches?

I've got an Arista 7050QX switch with 4.14 EOS version. Then it has been
found out that Arista switches seem to not have possibility to unlock
off-brand xcievers usage (by some service command or so).

I've patched /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/XcvrAgent.py, made the
checking function bypass the actual check and it helped: ports are not
in errdisable state anymore. But despite of xceivers are detected
correctly, links aren't coming up (they are in notconnect state).

If anyone possibly have does have a sacred knowledge of bringing
off-branded transceivers to life on Arista switches, your help'd be very
appreciated. Thanks.

Arista unqualified SFP

[Stanislaw]

Hi all,
Is there a way for unlocking off-brand transceivers usage on Arista 
switches?


I've got an Arista 7050QX switch with 4.14 EOS version. Then it has been 
found out that Arista switches seem to not have possibility to unlock 
off-brand xcievers usage (by some service command or so).


I've patched /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/XcvrAgent.py, made the 
checking function bypass the actual check and it helped: ports are not 
in errdisable state anymore. But despite of xceivers are detected 
correctly, links aren't coming up (they are in notconnect state).


If anyone possibly have does have a sacred knowledge of bringing 
off-branded transceivers to life on Arista switches, your help'd be very 
appreciated. Thanks.