[c-nsp] Non Cisco SFP

[Bill Woodcock]

> On Feb 2, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Charles Sprickman <spork at bway.net> wrote:
> 
> On Feb 2, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:
> 
>> On 2/Feb/15 18:46, Warren Jackson wrote:
>>> Sure, no problem!
>>> 
>>> 1)  Lack of Cisco support.  You will find yourself behind the eight-ball
>>> dealing with the TAC if you have these in your chassis.  Sounds like a
>>> small deal, but I for one don't have the time to deal with it.
>> 
>> I've found this not to be an issue in practice.
> 
> And if it is, it’s solved with a handful of spares per location.  If you have 100 SFPs at one location and you’re saving a few hundred per SFP, keeping a few “genuine” units is a small price if you have TAC paranoia.

…or if you just need to be able to rule that out as an issue.  We do that, have one each of the Cisco-branded units on hand.

                                -Bill




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20150202/ff488d68/attachment.sig>