[176174] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: A case against vendor-locking optical modules
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jethro R Binks)
Mon Nov 17 16:37:33 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 21:37:22 +0000 (GMT)
From: Jethro R Binks <jethro.binks@strath.ac.uk>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B401572054A0@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Mon, 17 Nov 2014, Naslund, Steve wrote:
> Let talk about the 800 pound gorilla in the room and the #1 reason to
> hate vendor locked optics. Some vendors (yes, Cisco I'm looking at you)
> want to charge ridiculously high prices for optic that are identical to
> generic optics other than the vendor lock. Maybe a better tactic would
> be to have the vendor explain to you why the vendor lock is necessary.
> You are after all the customer and don't owe them any explanations.
The Packetpushers recently discussed this issue:
http://packetpushers.net/ps-show-35-oem-sfp-qsfp-modules-work/
Jethro.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jethro R Binks, Network Manager,
Information Services Directorate, University Of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
The University of Strathclyde is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, number SC015263.
