[j-nsp] QFX3500 optics lock?

[Phil Mayers]

On 01/08/2012 01:48 AM, OBrien, Will wrote:
> I'd make darn sure that Juniper knows that this is an issue for you.
> I'm half torn on the optics issue - I can half understand the
> argument for certified optics, but I've also been in the position of
> being short on 'blessed' optics while having other vendors hardware
> on hand.

Couple of points (but long email, sorry - this is a pet peeve issue of 
mine!).

Firstly, I think the phrase "certified" optics is a misnomer, one that 
I'm sure Juniper would like to hide behind. It would be a completely 
different matter if Juniper said something like:

"We only support optics from the following 3rd party vendors/product lines."

Instead, they're saying:

"We will only allow you to use our optics."

...and then fail to price them competitively. This is an abuse of market 
power, and like most such abuses, it's bad for everyone except the 
owners / shareholders of the company doing the abusing.

I note that, at current pricing levels, 10G transceivers actually cost 
more than the per-port cost of the *packet forwarding hardware* for some 
high-density platforms (which is extraordinary). You could make a 
convincing argument that over-priced transceivers retard deployment of 
high-bandwidth networks, and that this adversely affects pricing all up 
the value chain.


Secondly, I don't see why Juniper need to *force* whatever restriction 
(either the current Juniper-only, or some more gentle "certified only") 
in software. They could trivially deny JTAC support for any issue 
involving loss / delay / jitter until the customer tries a Juniper or 
Juniper-approved transceiver.

(If the issue didn't go away when I purchased and installed such a 
transceiver, I would like Juniper to refund my money of course...;o)

There are hundreds of things that can go wrong with a box, and the 
transceiver has relatively little to do with most of them. For them to 
claim that a major risk to a QFX box is "dodgy optics", especially when 
the vast majority of optics are made in the same few places, and differ 
only in physical label and EEPROM contents, is either self-deluding or 
dishonest on Junipers part.

If they want people to believe that, they'll need to be a lot more open 
about the testing they did to prove that uncertified optics cause 
problems, and that still doesn't get them off the hook. Certified != 
Juniper.

> That said, even cisco does this with the unsupported optics command.

Indeed, and I don't have much problem with that model.

Semi-interesting aside though; we once got stung with a batch of really 
crappy, forged "cisco genuine" transceivers. The reason I know they were 
forged is that we had a large number of duplicate serial numbers. The 
reason I knew that they were crappy? They were "malformed" - at least 5% 
of them wouldn't accept an LC connector due to mis-aligned barrels, and 
about half the rest had EXTRAORDINARILY low power output. We shouted at 
the reseller, and got our money back.

However - crappy though they were, imagine my irritation when, even with 
"service unsupported-transceiver", a duplicate SFP serial number caused 
err-disable on BOTH ports, and requires BOTH transceivers to be removed.

It's not obvious to me that this is a reasonable response; the 1st 
transceiver was in, and forwarding packets. Why disable it? What 
possible "value" does that add?

So even the Cisco model is a bit more restrictive than first 
appearances. It's only "some" unsupported transceivers.

Cheers,
Phil