A case against vendor-locking optical modules
SNaslund at medline.com
Mon Nov 17 19:59:49 UTC 2014
That is their most popular argument. However this is no different from putting a NIC card. RAM, or hard drives in a server platform. For that matter, do you blame the network vendor if you have a faulty optical cable? In your example, can you be sure that the SFP was the issue? You can't be because someone obviously did not follow the standards for the SFP interface, was it the network gear or the SFP itself. Just because brand X does not work with switch Y does not make it brand Xs fault.
Obviously if there is a flaw in the NIC, the server guys should not get blamed. Just as there are standards for USB, PCI, SATA, and other, there are standards for SFP and SFP+ interfaces. If the optic vendor is not compliant, that's their problem and if your network gear does not accept any optic that complies with the standard that is the network gear's fault. Consider how you would feel if HP servers only accepted HP hard drives or would not accept an Intel NIC, would you accept that?
>I've asked the same question and got the answer that there is a REAL BIG chip manufacture that was having huge system issue and told the vendor that they were going to rip out all the manufactures routing / switching equipment if >they didn't get it fixed.
>after the manufacture send engineering staff on site they found that the problem was not the routers or switches but the SFP's that the Chip manufacture had purchased. After replacing the SFP's they had no problems.
>So if you were the router manufacture you might also put in the locks....... Just say'n
>I hate it also, but I also really like a stable network. I also know that there are some OEM's for even Cisco that I have used in the past.
>Just my two cents.
More information about the NANOG