[165370] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: subrate SFP?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nick B)
Sat Aug 31 16:48:40 2013
In-Reply-To: <AEB72F0F-794F-48BE-A9D1-DA334D2CA6B8@bogus.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 16:48:21 -0400
From: Nick B <nick@pelagiris.org>
To: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Ah, I needed *another* reason to murder WOL in it's sleep. Thanks!
Nick
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
> WOL uses 100Mb/s, the phy draws less that way.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 31, 2013, at 10:13, Charles N Wyble <charles-lists@knownelement.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On hp proliant gen8 servers with management and ilo on same port, with
> the server off the ports show up as 100mbps.
> >
> > Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Jamie Bowden <jamie@photon.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> From: Saku Ytti [mailto:saku@ytti.fi]
> >>> Considering that Dell and HP at least are shipping brand new hardware
> >> with
> >>> IPMI/BMC/iLO/whatever management ports that can only speak 100mbit
> >> when
> >>> every other Ethernet interface in the box at least gigabit, having a
> >> useful
> >>> way to talk to that port without having to keep separate switching
> >> hardware
> >>> around would be nice. I'm not holding my breath, but you know, along
> >> with
> >>> a pony, this would be nice.
> >>
> >> Eh? That may have been the case a few years ago, but HP ILO4 and
> >> iDRAC7 specifically list 10/100/1000 even when using in dedicated
> >> port
> >> mode.
> >>
> >> And even in prior versions, you could have the port linking up at
> >> 1Gbps,
> >> by operating the management in Shared port mode (Sharing the
> >> management
> >> with the server's Eth0).
> >>
> >> I expect over time: support for linking up at 10/100 will get rarer
> >> and
> >> much more expensive.
> >>
> >>
> >> The niche status a 10/100 media converter as an SFP would have if
> >> produced
> >> is likely to mean it would retail at $2000+ per port device.
> >>
> >>
> >> It probably just makes more sense to go find an old obsolete top of
> >> rack
> >> switch, like a Cat3750 to get the small fraction of legacy copper
> >> ports
> >> required for out of band network and server management, which: by the
> >> way, should be part of a separate switching infrastructure anyways,
> >> to
> >> increase the chance it stays operational and useful for
> >> troubleshooting, in
> >> the event the production network experiences outage or has other issues
> >> requiring diagnosis.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Jamie
> >>
> >> --
> >> -JH
> >
> > --
> > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> >
>
>
