SFPs and other vendors

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by thcollicutt, Dec 13, 2007.

  1. thcollicutt

    thcollicutt Guest

    My organization has put out an RFP for a province-wide Fiber Optin
    government WAN. At the moment we are tendering for media converters.

    The plan is to use a combination of 6500s, 3750-Es, and 3560s.

    Several vendors have suggested that Cisco has relaxed their
    restriction to only use of Cisco specific parts, and only require
    meeting the conditions of the Multisourcing agreement.

    I am waiting for a response from my Cisco rep, but has anyone else
    heard this?
    thcollicutt, Dec 13, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. thcollicutt <> writes:
    >My organization has put out an RFP for a province-wide Fiber Optin
    >government WAN. At the moment we are tendering for media converters.


    >The plan is to use a combination of 6500s, 3750-Es, and 3560s.


    >Several vendors have suggested that Cisco has relaxed their
    >restriction to only use of Cisco specific parts, and only require
    >meeting the conditions of the Multisourcing agreement.


    >I am waiting for a response from my Cisco rep, but has anyone else
    >heard this?



    There are semi-undocumented commands in some versions of IOS code on
    those switch lines in order to let other SFP vendors work in them.

    In general, you will get messages saying that you will be unsupported
    then, and at first sight of a problem, TAC will blame your SFPs.

    So, I wouldn't say that would be too relaxed in dealing with it.

    OOTH, I was just sourcing some SFPs for some of the MDS gear, which I
    found that cisco only works with cisco label no matter what, but the
    cisco label SFPs were by far cheaper than any other vendor, even being
    half the cost of "guaranteed 3rd party replacement". Not sure if they
    just had a huge cost cut across that line or what.

    The only cisco SFPs that I've seen that are outrageous in price were
    the more specialized ones. Ie. single mode long range, or CDWM versions.
    Doug McIntyre, Dec 13, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. thcollicutt

    John Guest

    On Dec 13, 3:45 pm, thcollicutt <> wrote:
    > My organization has put out an RFP for a province-wide Fiber Optin
    > government WAN. At the moment we are tendering for media converters.
    >
    > The plan is to use a combination of 6500s, 3750-Es, and 3560s.
    >
    > Several vendors have suggested that Cisco has relaxed their
    > restriction to only use of Cisco specific parts, and only require
    > meeting the conditions of the Multisourcing agreement.
    >
    > I am waiting for a response from my Cisco rep, but has anyone else
    > heard this?


    haven't heard so, but I've come across to an issue where a non-cisco
    sfp was ok on the gig0/2 port of a 3560 switch and it wasn't ok on the
    gig0/1 port of the same switch.
    the cisco sfp worked fine on both ports.
    On another 3560 (same model) non-cisco sfp worked also fine.

    I think that Cisco's optics are too expensive (while in storage
    networking are not), but I wouldn't blame TAC for not accepting RMA
    for the above mentioned 3560...
    John, Dec 13, 2007
    #3
  4. thcollicutt

    thcollicutt Guest

    On Dec 13, 4:02 pm, John <> wrote:
    > On Dec 13, 3:45 pm, thcollicutt <> wrote:
    >
    > > My organization has put out an RFP for a province-wide Fiber Optin
    > > government WAN. At the moment we are tendering for media converters.

    >
    > > The plan is to use a combination of 6500s, 3750-Es, and 3560s.

    >
    > > Several vendors have suggested that Cisco has relaxed their
    > > restriction to only use of Cisco specific parts, and only require
    > > meeting the conditions of the Multisourcing agreement.

    >
    > > I am waiting for a response from my Cisco rep, but has anyone else
    > > heard this?

    >
    > haven't heard so, but I've come across to an issue where a non-cisco
    > sfp was ok on the gig0/2 port of a 3560 switch and it wasn't ok on the
    > gig0/1 port of the same switch.
    > the cisco sfp worked fine on both ports.
    > On another 3560 (same model) non-cisco sfp worked also fine.
    >
    > I think that Cisco's optics are too expensive (while in storage
    > networking are not), but I wouldn't blame TAC for not accepting RMA
    > for the above mentioned 3560...


    I got a reply from my rep stating that things are etting stricter,
    rather than looser. Even if it works, seems like warrantee issues.

    Thanks for the input.

    Trent
    thcollicutt, Dec 13, 2007
    #4
  5. thcollicutt

    Sam Wilson Guest

    In article
    <>,
    thcollicutt <> wrote:

    > On Dec 13, 4:02 pm, John <> wrote:
    > > On Dec 13, 3:45 pm, thcollicutt <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > My organization has put out an RFP for a province-wide Fiber Optin
    > > > government WAN. At the moment we are tendering for media converters.

    > >
    > > > The plan is to use a combination of 6500s, 3750-Es, and 3560s.

    > >
    > > > Several vendors have suggested that Cisco has relaxed their
    > > > restriction to only use of Cisco specific parts, and only require
    > > > meeting the conditions of the Multisourcing agreement.

    > >
    > > > I am waiting for a response from my Cisco rep, but has anyone else
    > > > heard this?

    > >
    > > haven't heard so, but I've come across to an issue where a non-cisco
    > > sfp was ok on the gig0/2 port of a 3560 switch and it wasn't ok on the
    > > gig0/1 port of the same switch.
    > > the cisco sfp worked fine on both ports.
    > > On another 3560 (same model) non-cisco sfp worked also fine.
    > >
    > > I think that Cisco's optics are too expensive (while in storage
    > > networking are not), but I wouldn't blame TAC for not accepting RMA
    > > for the above mentioned 3560...

    >
    > I got a reply from my rep stating that things are etting stricter,
    > rather than looser. Even if it works, seems like warrantee issues.


    That's our impression. We have Cisco and 3Com kit. 3Com GBICs
    generally work in Cisco kit (though 'show int status' doesn't identify
    the type) but 3Com SFPs don't. Mind you neither Cisco GBICs nor SFPs
    have worked in the 3Com kit we've tried them in, but given the, errm,
    broad range of 3Com kit that's not a very exhaustive test.

    Sam
    Sam Wilson, Dec 14, 2007
    #5
  6. thcollicutt <> crashed Echelon writing news:b77ebd4e-
    :

    > Several vendors have suggested that Cisco has relaxed their
    > restriction to only use of Cisco specific parts, and only require
    > meeting the conditions of the Multisourcing agreement.


    Cisco's feelings are very strict when talking about support, however in
    real world there are a line of vendors Cisco equipment accepts, and as
    mentioned by others, on certain equipment there are commands to switch of
    vendor check.

    Myself are using several Agilent branded SFPs and GBICs. Actually when you
    look at Cisco branded SFPs and GBICs it is Agilent who made them.

    --
    Bjarke Andersen
    Bjarke Andersen, Dec 14, 2007
    #6
  7. My suggestion is to NOT scrimp by buying "too good to be true" Cisco
    SFPs or GIBCs. I've been burnt by counterfeits. These parts are pretty
    expensive (in terms of what Cisco charges), but the headaches and odd
    behavior you'll save are probably worth it - too a point. The
    counterfeit devices are something to behold in terms of appearance, so
    be careful and buy from a reputable partner.


    thcollicutt wrote:
    > My organization has put out an RFP for a province-wide Fiber Optin
    > government WAN. At the moment we are tendering for media converters.
    >
    > The plan is to use a combination of 6500s, 3750-Es, and 3560s.
    >
    > Several vendors have suggested that Cisco has relaxed their
    > restriction to only use of Cisco specific parts, and only require
    > meeting the conditions of the Multisourcing agreement.
    >
    > I am waiting for a response from my Cisco rep, but has anyone else
    > heard this?
    >
    fugettaboutit, Dec 14, 2007
    #7
  8. thcollicutt

    Sam Wilson Guest

    In article <x%u8j.7053$CJ.1618@trndny02>, fugettaboutit <>
    wrote:

    > My suggestion is to NOT scrimp by buying "too good to be true" Cisco
    > SFPs or GIBCs. I've been burnt by counterfeits. These parts are pretty
    > expensive (in terms of what Cisco charges), but the headaches and odd
    > behavior you'll save are probably worth it - too a point. The
    > counterfeit devices are something to behold in terms of appearance, so
    > be careful and buy from a reputable partner.
    >
    >
    > thcollicutt wrote:
    > > My organization has put out an RFP for a province-wide Fiber Optin
    > > government WAN. At the moment we are tendering for media converters.
    > >
    > > The plan is to use a combination of 6500s, 3750-Es, and 3560s.
    > >
    > > Several vendors have suggested that Cisco has relaxed their
    > > restriction to only use of Cisco specific parts, and only require
    > > meeting the conditions of the Multisourcing agreement.
    > >
    > > I am waiting for a response from my Cisco rep, but has anyone else
    > > heard this?
    > >


    It's not counterfeits that I'm bothered about, it's other reputable
    brands not being usable that's annoying.

    Sam
    Sam Wilson, Dec 14, 2007
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Stevie
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    614
  2. *** HAWK

    Cheapest SD & MMC Cards prices (UK Vendors)

    *** HAWK, Oct 27, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    448
    Gareth not NLL or anybody else.
    Oct 27, 2003
  3. *** HAWK

    Looking for Boys size Football Shirt (UK vendors)

    *** HAWK, Jan 17, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    3,167
    KerplunKuK
    Jan 17, 2004
  4. Replies:
    11
    Views:
    10,961
    stephen
    Jun 25, 2005
  5. Ned
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    573
Loading...

Share This Page