nanog mailing list archives
Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules
From: ryanL <ryan.landry () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 12:09:21 -0800
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.
Current thread:
- Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules, (continued)
- Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules William Herrin (Nov 17)
- 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)