[176181] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: A case against vendor-locking optical modules
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Naslund, Steve)
Mon Nov 17 19:39:59 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Naslund, Steve" <SNaslund@medline.com>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 00:39:50 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CAK_-TSYwgepHWRRGnGU4bSZHm7222vp55SJpErBronhZT0if1w@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Our experience using that command has been mixed enough to be unreliable fo=
r production. Problems include error disabled interfaces refusing to come =
back online and the command not surviving a power cycle. Use with caution.
Steven Naslund
Chicago IL
> On Nov 17, 2014, at 2:11 PM, "ryanL" <ryan.landry@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> 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.
