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

[Peter Rathlev]

On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 20:04 +0100, Marian Ďurkovič wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 10:36:06 -0800, Ian Cox wrote
> > It a little more complicated on the GLC vs SFP parts. The SFP parts are
> > spec'd to support a higher case temperature then the GLCs. Some
> > platforms airflow at worst case temperature can not sufficiently cool
> > GLC, were as SFP parts are spec'd to work at the higher temperatures.
> > 
> > Ian
> 
> Yep, that's yet another reason to finally discontinue GLC parts - which also
> lack DOM support. Especially when the manufacturing costs difference between SFP
> and GLC parts is something like 1 USD...

But... why oh why aren't SFP optics supported in the 6500[0]? If they're
just supposed to be more durable I can't see the problem.

And why can't I use a CAB-SFP in a 3750, even though it's completely
genuine Cisco?

I have some (though not much) sympathy for Cisco's not wanting to
support 3rd party transceivers. Hey, they have to feed their kids and
all that. But I fail to see why they won't support their own
transceivers. That's just plain stupid.

Oh well, we're in talks with a 3rd party provider that deliver optics
that work without "service unsupported-transceiver" at a much lower
price and 3 year warranty.

-- 
Peter

[0]: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/interfaces_modules/transceiver_modules/compatibility/matrix/OL_6981.html#wp139518
Also confirmed by an SE, telling us to buy GLCs instead.