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

[Tim Durack]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists
<lists at hojmark.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 01:05:09 +0100, you wrote:
>
>> 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...
>
> Ha.
>
> I had a customer with HP VirtualConnect Flex-10 and Cisco Nexus 5000,
> who couldn't use a Cisco cable (DAC) because the VC wouldn't accept it
> and couldn't use a HP cable because the N5K wouldn't accept it. So ...
> 'service unsupported' to the rescue.
>
> So, I don't see how HP is better when it comes to pluggables. Au
> contraire.
>
> -A
> PS: And now Cisco even officially support some HP DACs.

The issue of SFP compatibility has driven me up the wall and around
the bend. Vendors will not change their anti-competitive behavior
without external force. An external force I can apply, is money. So
buy SFPs from OEM and instruct them to code the SFP as needed (they
are making the SFPs for VendorC/J/H anyway.) There are plenty of
companies who will do it, and they make a decent product. You may have
to carry the burden of "testing" the SFPs.

-- 
Tim:>

p.s. The situation with DACs is ridiculous. We stick to optics if we
don't completely control the equipment on either side.