[165142] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Typical warranty for generic DWDM transceivers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jared Mauch)
Tue Aug 20 16:26:47 2013
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAE_ug17v5AQU6XevtS2uyzGey=dZ=FRFi2ND0ABkpYdFo=qFVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 16:26:20 -0400
To: Tim Durack <tdurack@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Aug 20, 2013, at 10:01 AM, Tim Durack <tdurack@gmail.com> wrote:
> The vendor-locked optics issue cause more trouble than it is worth. =
There
> really needs to be some kind of "aftermarket" ruling on network =
equipment,
> something along the lines of:
I've had interoperability issues with first party optics with first =
party equipment that isn't seen with 3rd party.
I do wish more people would put pressure on their vendors on this topic.
Simple text in your RFP/RFI requiring all SFF-8472 fields to be usable, =
sticking their "stuff" in their part of the EEPROM, but basing =
operations on the MSA fields not their own elements.
- jared=
