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

[sthaug at nethelp.no]

> > 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.
> 
> Support takes testing
> Testing takes time
> Time costs money 

Also, Cisco makes significant amounts of money on this, so why should
they give it up?

> ... 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.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> The problem with using Cisco-coded transceivers is that it makes it
> much harder to figure out what's going on. (And yes, lots of those
> pluggables that appear to work, frequently fails. Been there, seen it
> many times on support cases).

We have also been using Cisco-coded transceivers for years, and haven't
had significantly worse failure rate on those than on optics purchased
from Cisco. YMMV.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug at nethelp.no