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

[Peter Rathlev]

On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 23:10 +0100, Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 21:21:21 +0100, you wrote:
> >           But I fail to see why they won't support their own
> > transceivers. That's just plain stupid.
> 
> Support takes testing
> Testing takes time
> Time costs money 

Yeah. Sometimes it's just hard to understand what extremely rigorous
testing scheme means that 6500/SXI doesn't support SFPs but 7600/SRD
does. If they tested new IOS releases that well we wouldn't have half
the problems we all write about would we? ;-)

Similar thing with CAB-SFP, being supported in all the different models
of 3560/3560G but not the quite similar 3750 platform. (Quite similar in
hardware and quite similar in software/features.)

I'd prefer they put a sticker on the thing saying "use at your own
risk" (i.e. "service unsupported-transceiver") instead of plainly
disallowing it's use.

> ... plus, given a finite amount of time, there'll always be
> prioritization on what to do when. We may not always agree with the
> priorities, but you shouldn't doubt that they're done.

Of course. That just means that Cisco is bound to alienate some subset
of their customers. And I can't imagine Cisco doesn't know that their
competitors _really_ use this to their advantage. I'm not sure e.g.
HP/H3C is better, but boy do they know what irritate Ciscos customers...

> If one use something else than Cisco pluggables, one should at least
> use products from someone who isn't afraid to put their own name on
> and in the product.

Completely agree, and these (EG Electronics) indeed do. And they seem
proud about it. Mind you, we haven't really tested anything yet, just
talked with them.

-- 
Peter