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

[Tim Durack]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:00 AM, Jared Mauch <jared at puck.nether.net> wrote:
>
> On Nov 17, 2010, at 6:27 AM, Tim Durack wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I'm talking about Cisco sold optics.
>
> Cisco doesn't support their own optics that they sell.  And I'm not talking about the 100M-FX stuff that doesn't work because the ethernet framer isn't gig+100, or 10/100/1000.
>
> This isn't the issue of 3rd party optics coded as Cisco, but more that they have a warehouse of equipment that doesn't interoperate with itself that they keep shoveling out at the community.

Point taken. Cisco BUs might as well be competing companies.

-- 
Tim:>