nanog mailing list archives
Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules
From: Ken Matlock <matlockken () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 15:37:08 -0700
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 1:09 PM, ryanL <ryan.landry () gmail com> wrote:
there's a reason why cisco introduced "service unsupported-transceiver", which still remains an undocumented command. i have arista gear as well. kinda wish they had a similar undocumented command.
Arista does have it (at least in older codes, no idea if it still works). http://serverfault.com/questions/281534/what-is-the-command-to-enable-3rd-party-sfp-transceivers-on-arista-switch One note: I did not have to reboot the switch for it to work. That took care of *most* 3rd-party optics, but I seem to recall it didn't cover 100%. Ken
Current thread:
- Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules, (continued)
- Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules Justin M. Streiner (Nov 17)
- Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 17)
- Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules Justin M. Streiner (Nov 17)
- RE: A case against vendor-locking optical modules Jethro R Binks (Nov 17)
- Message not available
- Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules Clayton Zekelman (Nov 17)
- Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules ryanL (Nov 17)
- Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules Ken Matlock (Nov 17)
- Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules Jérôme Nicolle (Nov 17)
- Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules Naslund, Steve (Nov 17)
- Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules Patrick W. Gilmore (Nov 17)
- Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules Jérôme Nicolle (Nov 17)
- Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules Ryan Pugatch (Nov 18)
- Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules Baldur Norddahl (Nov 18)
- Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules Naslund, Steve (Nov 18)