[c-nsp] Will UDLD work with converters ?

[Mark Tinka]

On Friday 02 October 2009 10:27:37 pm Justin Shore wrote:

> 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.

This is the thing I really like about "J".

Across a specific series of platforms, e.g., M/T/MX, all 
optics are shared, including SFP-to-copper modules.

It's a real pity when you can no longer take such simple 
pleasures for granted.

I think Cisco's SPA technology is a step in the right 
direction re: optical modules, since they're all shared 
among the various platforms that support this interface 
model, but I wonder how many of Cisco's customers will be 
moving to the SIP/SPA format soon (and it likely won't be 
because of common SFP/XFP sparing).

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20091003/2b3dd1cd/attachment.bin>