[c-nsp] GLC-LH-SM vs SFP-GE-L

[Mark Tinka]

On Tuesday, November 16, 2010 05:29:46 pm jack daniels 
wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> Are there  any potential Technical issues with ignoring
> Cisco and using GLC-LH-SM
> rather than SFP-GE-L. What I can figure out is -
> with GLC-LH-SM - no monitoring (no DOM)
> SFP-GE-L higher cost.

We've been able to run GLC-* type modules in routers like 
the 7201 with no problem. I haven't tried the reverse on a 
switch.

The 7600 WS-X67xx line cards support either as far as we 
tested. We haven't tried the SFP-GE-* on the 6500.

The GLC-* works on the integrated switches of the RP's on a 
CRS platform, but that's really a switch, so...

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20101116/982f90fc/attachment.bin>