[c-nsp] Will UDLD work with converters ?

[Tim Durack]

>> We are looking at the converters because the Cisco ZX optics are very
>> expensive and the converters with 30KM optics are much cheaper than the 60
>> KM ZX optics.
>
> Agreed.  This is on my list of major Cisco gripes.  10km is laughable in the
> SP world.  Where are the 20k and 40k optics?  Where are the 80k and 110k
> optics?  Cabletron had 110k optics a decade ago.
>
> The single-strand Cisco GigE optic is limited to 10km too. Single-strand
> optics are critical in the SP world.  Not everyone has excess bundles of
> dark fiber to play with to turn up a simple GigE link.  I understand that
> Cisco wouldn't sell a lot of these since most of their business is
> enterprise.  I get that.  I would suggest that they pick a well-known and
> reliable SFP manufacturer like Champion and support their optics.  Fill in
> the void with someone else's gear if you don't think the cost would justify
> the benefits of doing it yourself. There are other ways to do things besides
> doing it all in-house.
>
> Another major Cisco SFP gripe I have is that some BUs require optics that no
> other BU supports which makes common sparing across your product lines
> impossible.  The ONSs require specific optics.  The GLC- and SFP- that the
> switches and routers support don't work in ONS's LCs like the XPonder.
>  We've found that the SFP- optics aren't supported in some switches with
> older code.  DOM isn't universally supported so why pay for thee DOM optic
> when your switch or linecard doesn't support it. DWDM SFP support was added
> to some switches in the later 12.2(40+)SE releases such as 12.2(46)SE for
> the ME3750.  However it wasn't added to all switches such as the 3560, 3750,
> or 2960 but it was added to the 3560/3750 E series.  The beefy 4948s and
> monster 4900Ms are still out in the cold on DWDM support for SFPs too (I
> know that the 10G X2 optic supports DWDM).
>
> It seems to me that there should be a standards body within Cisco that
> should mandate certain minimum requirements of all product lines.  If and
> when there is the ability for BUs and product lines to share common and
> trivial products like SFPs then they should require it.  It would save them
> R&D and QA money if nothing else.
>

Without derailing this discussion, I think the support of "OEM" vs
"Vendor" optics is a bigger issue.

There are a number of switch vendors that refuse to support 3rd party
optics, even if they are re-branding those same optics. The problem is
margins are so high on optics, it is a major cash-cow for most switch
vendors. I have had this discussion with switch vendor: they will not
budge, giving all kinds of quality/support issues as the reason.

It is possible to vote with your wallet, and only buy from vendors
that support 3rd party. But at some point  you get stuck needing to
buy equipment from a vendor that doesn't support 3rd party.

It seems to me that optics should be considered like parts for a car.
If you want to install 3rd party, go ahead. Don't expect optics
support from anybody but the 3rd party. But don't stop me from doing
it either.

Tim:>