On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:26:44 +1100, Lincoln Dale wrote
To be fair, Lincoln, Marian is talking about a different level of
incompatibility going on here. There are quirks in all hardware interfaces
(the free unix ethernet and SCSI drivers make interesting reading), but
getting good
On 18/03/2010, at 7:10 PM, Marian Ďurkovič wrote:
In addition, by buying kit which takes X2 modules, you're committing a
huge amount of transceiver capex on a particular vendor (i.e. Cisco or
HP) which cannot then be moved to another vendor, because no-one else in
the industry uses them. This
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 09:54:13AM +1100, Lincoln Dale wrote:
from a switch design standpoint if you are designing a switch that could
be used in many places in the network then reality is one probably needs
to support multiple transceiver types if you want to address all
requirements.
On 16/03/10 22:54, Lincoln Dale wrote:
On 17/03/2010, at 12:54 AM, Marian Ďurkovič wrote:
[..] Thus, the massive rush towards SFP+ might at the end of the
day turn out to be a serious flaw, [..]
you list downsides without giving fair balance to the upsides.
like many things engineering, its
It would be good if Cisco were to adopt an official, consistent,
cross-platform position on non-Cisco transceivers, and one which was
favourable towards said transceivers provided they are in-spec for that
transceiver platform.
I doubt you'll get anything other than not supported, since
On 17/03/10 10:35, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
It would be good if Cisco were to adopt an official, consistent,
cross-platform position on non-Cisco transceivers, and one which was
favourable towards said transceivers provided they are in-spec for that
transceiver platform.
I doubt you'll get
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 10:16:42AM +, Phil Mayers wrote:
Hearing statements which add up to this whole transceiver platform
depends on the transceiver, linecard hardware and firmware interacting
correctly may read to some as we plan on screwing you with expensive
official cisco
On 17/03/2010 10:16, Phil Mayers wrote:
It would be good if Cisco were to adopt an official, consistent,
cross-platform position on non-Cisco transceivers
I'd be happy if they started with an official, consistent, cross-platform
position for Cisco transceivers. E.g. platform support for GLC-*
On 17/03/2010, at 7:05 PM, Marian Ďurkovič wrote:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 09:54:13AM +1100, Lincoln Dale wrote:
from a switch design standpoint if you are designing a switch that could
be used in many places in the network then reality is one probably needs
to support multiple transceiver
On 17/03/2010, at 9:16 PM, Phil Mayers wrote:
certainly if you are most focussed on long-distance optics or DWDM
then indeed SFP+ is probably not for you.
True, but...
Hearing statements which add up to this whole transceiver platform depends
on the transceiver, linecard hardware and
On 17/03/2010 21:28, Lincoln Dale wrote:
this assertion is also false. i can categorically state that there
has not been, there have been any number of quirks with standards
compliant MSA transceivers.
To be fair, Lincoln, Marian is talking about a different level of
incompatibility going on
On 18/03/2010, at 9:10 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 17/03/2010 21:28, Lincoln Dale wrote:
this assertion is also false. i can categorically state that there
has not been, there have been any number of quirks with standards
compliant MSA transceivers.
To be fair, Lincoln, Marian is talking
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Lincoln Dale wrote:
SFP+ is one of the newest transceiver formats and has a lot more of the
'stuff'
that used to be inside the transceiver on the switch PCB itself. one of the
things that has been moved is a component called the EDC (electronic
dispersion
On 17/03/2010, at 12:54 AM, Marian Ďurkovič wrote:
[..] Thus, the massive rush towards SFP+ might at the end of the day turn out
to be a serious flaw, [..]
you list downsides without giving fair balance to the upsides.
like many things engineering, its often not a case of something being
Nick Hilliard n...@inex.ie writes:
Also, twinax SFP+ are manufacturer-specific. Is it possible to get a
twinax-cable with a Cisco-coded SFP+ at one end and a Procurve-coded
SFP+ at the other?
It's certainly possible to hack one up, if you have transceiver.
Are they compatible though? If I
These days you can get cheap twinax 10G cables with SFP+ at the ends
to
connect two Cisco switches or two Procurves. Short distance only of
course, but very cheap.
They're also useful for connecting servers to top-of-rack 10G switches.
But curiously, they're currently unsupported by Cisco
On 15/03/2010, at 5:54 AM, christopher.mar...@usc-bt.com
christopher.mar...@usc-bt.com wrote:
These days you can get cheap twinax 10G cables with SFP+ at the ends
to
connect two Cisco switches or two Procurves. Short distance only of
course, but very cheap.
They're also useful for
These days you can get cheap twinax 10G cables with SFP
they are currently unsupported on N7K for good reasons that are
technical. strongly suggest that you don't use it for a production
environment.
They seem to work fine in this application, however.
suggest you do shut on one side
On 15/03/2010, at 7:57 AM, christopher.mar...@usc-bt.com
christopher.mar...@usc-bt.com wrote:
twinax support claims I've seen to date. I'm hopeful that vendors will
come to their senses on pluggables, at least for twinax cabling.
HP are currently locking in to HP transceivers. email
These days you can get cheap twinax 10G cables with SFP+ at the ends to
connect two Cisco switches or two Procurves. Short distance only of
course, but very cheap.
I would like to connect a Procurve 5406zl which has a SFP+ port to one
of the 10Gbps ports on a Cisco 7600 RSP720-3CXL-10GE.
Twinax
20 matches
Mail list logo
