On 01/08/2012 01:48 AM, OBrien, Will wrote:
I'd make darn sure that Juniper knows that this is an issue for you.
I'm half torn on the optics issue - I can half understand the
argument for certified optics, but I've also been in the position of
being short on 'blessed' optics while having other
On 01/08/2012 03:27 AM, Julien Goodwin wrote:
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.
Spot on, couldn't have put it
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
On 01/08/2012 12:22 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
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
On Sunday, January 08, 2012 08:11:19 PM Phil Mayers wrote:
Secondly, I don't see why Juniper need to *force*
whatever restriction (either the current Juniper-only,
or some more gentle certified only) in software. They
could trivially deny JTAC support for any issue
involving loss / delay /
5 matches
Mail list logo
