ixgbe: Unsupported SFP+ modules on 10Gbit/s X520-DA2 NIC?

ixgbe: Unsupported SFP+ modules on 10Gbit/s X520-DA2 NIC?

[Jesper Dangaard Brouer]

Hi Intel,

I just bought three 10Gbit/s X520-DA2 NICs (82599 based) for
production usage, but I cannot get them to accept any of my 10Gbit/s
SFP+ modules (4 different tried). According to the documentation I can
find, the X520-DA2 NIC should support fiber optics SFP+ modules.

The SFP+ modules does work in another 82599 based NIC in the same
machine (engineering sample from PJ).

According to the driver code (ixgbe) the 82599 and the X520 looks like
they share the same init code.

What is going on with the X520-DA2 model?


Extra info below:

Tested with:
 Kernel: 3.2.0-net-next-14778-g117ff42
 (ethtool -i)
 driver: ixgbe
 version: 3.6.7-k
 firmware-version: 0x18f60001
 bus-info: 0000:24:00.0

The working NIC reports firmware-version: 0xd87c0000.

The kern.log error:
 ixgbe 0000:24:00.1: failed to load because an unsupported SFP+ module type was detected.
 ixgbe 0000:24:00.1: Reload the driver after installing a supported module.

The PCI vendor ID's are also almost the same between the two cards:
 # None working X520-DA2 NIC
 lspci -n | grep 24:00.
 24:00.0 0200: 8086:10fb (rev 01)
 24:00.1 0200: 8086:10fb (rev 01)
 # Working NIC
 lspci -n | grep 12:00.
 12:00.0 0200: 8086:10fb
 12:00.1 0200: 8086:10fb

-- 
Best regards,
  Jesper Dangaard Brouer
  ComX Networks A/S
  Linux Network Kernel Developer
  Cand. Scient Datalog / MSc.CS
  Author of http://www.iptv-analyzer.org
  LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer

Re: ixgbe: Unsupported SFP+ modules on 10Gbit/s X520-DA2 NIC?

[Jesse Brandeburg]

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 03:30:58 -0800
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@comx.dk> wrote:
> I just bought three 10Gbit/s X520-DA2 NICs (82599 based) for
> production usage, but I cannot get them to accept any of my 10Gbit/s
> SFP+ modules (4 different tried). According to the documentation I can
> find, the X520-DA2 NIC should support fiber optics SFP+ modules.
Hi Jesper, 

For X520 adapters, the documentation[1] states that which SFP+
adapters are/are not supported.  Direct attach cables are also
supported.

[1] http://www.intel.com/support/network/adapter/pro100/sb/CS-030612.htm

> The SFP+ modules does work in another 82599 based NIC in the same
> machine (engineering sample from PJ).

Sorry, can't help you with that one, those samples are different
hardware.
 
Jesse

Re: ixgbe: Unsupported SFP+ modules on 10Gbit/s X520-DA2 NIC?

[Jesper Dangaard Brouer]

On Wed, 2012-01-18 at 09:13 -0800, Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 03:30:58 -0800
> Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@comx.dk> wrote:
>
> > I just bought three 10Gbit/s X520-DA2 NICs (82599 based) for
> > production usage, but I cannot get them to accept any of my 10Gbit/s
> > SFP+ modules (4 different tried). According to the documentation I can
> > find, the X520-DA2 NIC should support fiber optics SFP+ modules.
>
> For X520 adapters, the documentation[1] states that which SFP+
> adapters are/are not supported.  Direct attach cables are also
> supported.
> 
> [1] http://www.intel.com/support/network/adapter/pro100/sb/CS-030612.htm

They only support two fiber optics SFP+ module!!! ... sorry but that
sucks :-(

Does anybody know why they can only support these two SFP+ modules?
My other 82599 NICs have been running fine with other SFP+ modules.
Is there a technical reason?


> > The SFP+ modules does work in another 82599 based NIC in the same
> > machine (engineering sample from PJ).
> 
> Sorry, can't help you with that one, those samples are different
> hardware.

I fully understand, you cannot support these engineering samples.

Do Intel have another model of NICs, that support more SFP+ modules?
Perhaps the x540 based one?
(I would like support for a 20Km SFP+)

Thanks for your answer, Jesse :-)
-- 
Best regards,
  Jesper Dangaard Brouer
  ComX Networks A/S
  Linux Network Kernel Developer
  Cand. Scient Datalog / MSc.CS
  Author of http://www.iptv-analyzer.org
  LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
_______________________________________________
E1000-devel mailing list
E1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel
To learn more about Intel&#174; Ethernet, visit http://communities.intel.com/community/wired

Re: ixgbe: Unsupported SFP+ modules on 10Gbit/s X520-DA2 NIC?

[Benny Amorsen]

Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com> writes:

> For X520 adapters, the documentation[1] states that which SFP+
> adapters are/are not supported.  Direct attach cables are also
> supported.
>
> [1] http://www.intel.com/support/network/adapter/pro100/sb/CS-030612.htm

I can't believe that locked optics have now arrived on commodity
hardware. I have been trying to migrate to all-Intel networking at work;
that effort is certainly on hold now.


/Benny

Re: ixgbe: Unsupported SFP+ modules on 10Gbit/s X520-DA2 NIC?

[Jesper Dangaard Brouer]

On Wed, 2012-01-18 at 22:45 +0100, Benny Amorsen wrote:
> Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com> writes:
> 
> > For X520 adapters, the documentation[1] states that which SFP+
> > adapters are/are not supported.  Direct attach cables are also
> > supported.
> >
> > [1] http://www.intel.com/support/network/adapter/pro100/sb/CS-030612.htm
> 
> I can't believe that locked optics have now arrived on commodity
> hardware. I have been trying to migrate to all-Intel networking at work;
> that effort is certainly on hold now.

I cannot understand why Intel are pulling a stunt like this! :-(

I have read the code, and the limitation comes from a EEPROM setting on
the NIC, see define "IXGBE_DEVICE_CAPS_ALLOW_ANY_SFP 0x1".

Here is a (untested) patch I believe removes the limitation in the
driver:


[PATCH] ixgbe: Always allow any SFP+ regardless of EEPROM setting.

Intel are trying to limit which SFP's we can use in our NICs.
We don't like this practices in the Linux Kernel.

Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@comx.dk>
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_phy.c |    2 ++
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_phy.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_phy.c
index 7cf1e1f..2b13083 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_phy.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_phy.c
@@ -1061,6 +1061,8 @@ s32 ixgbe_identify_sfp_module_generic(struct ixgbe_hw *hw)
 		}
 
 		hw->mac.ops.get_device_caps(hw, &enforce_sfp);
+		/* Hack: Always allow any SFP regardless of EEPROM setting */
+		enforce_sfp |= IXGBE_DEVICE_CAPS_ALLOW_ANY_SFP;
 		if (!(enforce_sfp & IXGBE_DEVICE_CAPS_ALLOW_ANY_SFP) &&
 		    !((hw->phy.sfp_type == ixgbe_sfp_type_1g_cu_core0) ||
 		      (hw->phy.sfp_type == ixgbe_sfp_type_1g_cu_core1))) {



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
_______________________________________________
E1000-devel mailing list
E1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel
To learn more about Intel&#174; Ethernet, visit http://communities.intel.com/community/wired

Re: ixgbe: Unsupported SFP+ modules on 10Gbit/s X520-DA2 NIC?

[Ben Greear]

On 01/18/2012 02:19 PM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-01-18 at 22:45 +0100, Benny Amorsen wrote:
>> Jesse Brandeburg<jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>  writes:
>>
>>> For X520 adapters, the documentation[1] states that which SFP+
>>> adapters are/are not supported.  Direct attach cables are also
>>> supported.
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.intel.com/support/network/adapter/pro100/sb/CS-030612.htm
>>
>> I can't believe that locked optics have now arrived on commodity
>> hardware. I have been trying to migrate to all-Intel networking at work;
>> that effort is certainly on hold now.
>
> I cannot understand why Intel are pulling a stunt like this! :-(
>
> I have read the code, and the limitation comes from a EEPROM setting on
> the NIC, see define "IXGBE_DEVICE_CAPS_ALLOW_ANY_SFP 0x1".
>
> Here is a (untested) patch I believe removes the limitation in the
> driver:
>
>
> [PATCH] ixgbe: Always allow any SFP+ regardless of EEPROM setting.
>
> Intel are trying to limit which SFP's we can use in our NICs.
> We don't like this practices in the Linux Kernel.

I think that you should at least print some big warnings in
the kernel logs if you do this, as well as all the info you
can find on the non-supported SFP+ module in use so that folks can debug
things if the SFP+ doesn't properly work.

As previously mentioned, I found a case where some random SFP+
did NOT work with a similar hack in place...

Thanks,
Ben

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com

[PATCH RFC] ixgbe: Module param "allow_any_sfp" for allowing unsupported SFP+ modules

[Jesper Dangaard Brouer]

Intel are limiting which SFP's can use in their NICs, due to support issues.
This restriction comes from an EEPROM setting IXGBE_DEVICE_CAPS_ALLOW_ANY_SFP.
This is for example the case with the 10Gbit/s X520-DA2 NIC.

Add a module param "allow_any_sfp", which can override the EEPROM
setting, and allows any unsupported SFP+ module to be used.  When
doing so, print disclaimer of unsupported usage.

Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@comx.dk>
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_phy.c |   23 ++++++++++++++++++++---
 1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_phy.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_phy.c
index 7cf1e1f..2ccee6f 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_phy.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_phy.c
@@ -32,6 +32,12 @@
 #include "ixgbe_common.h"
 #include "ixgbe_phy.h"
 
+#define ALLOW_ANY_SFP_DEFAULT 0
+static unsigned int allow_any_sfp __read_mostly = ALLOW_ANY_SFP_DEFAULT;
+module_param(allow_any_sfp, uint, 0644);
+MODULE_PARM_DESC(allow_any_sfp,
+		 "Allow any SFP+ module, even if EEPROM disallow it");
+
 static void ixgbe_i2c_start(struct ixgbe_hw *hw);
 static void ixgbe_i2c_stop(struct ixgbe_hw *hw);
 static s32 ixgbe_clock_in_i2c_byte(struct ixgbe_hw *hw, u8 *data);
@@ -844,6 +850,7 @@ s32 ixgbe_identify_sfp_module_generic(struct ixgbe_hw *hw)
 	u8 cable_tech = 0;
 	u8 cable_spec = 0;
 	u16 enforce_sfp = 0;
+	struct ixgbe_adapter *adapter = NULL;
 
 	if (hw->mac.ops.get_media_type(hw) != ixgbe_media_type_fiber) {
 		hw->phy.sfp_type = ixgbe_sfp_type_not_present;
@@ -1068,9 +1075,19 @@ s32 ixgbe_identify_sfp_module_generic(struct ixgbe_hw *hw)
 			if (hw->phy.type == ixgbe_phy_sfp_intel) {
 				status = 0;
 			} else {
-				hw_dbg(hw, "SFP+ module not supported\n");
-				hw->phy.type = ixgbe_phy_sfp_unsupported;
-				status = IXGBE_ERR_SFP_NOT_SUPPORTED;
+				adapter = hw->back; /* used by e_dev_err macro*/
+				e_dev_err(
+					"SFP+ module not supported by Intel\n");
+				if (allow_any_sfp) { /* modul param override */
+					e_dev_err(
+					"Continue WITHOUT support, SFP+ module "
+					"vendor OUI:0x%06X (enum phy.type:%d)\n",
+					vendor_oui >> 8, hw->phy.type);
+					status = 0;
+				} else {
+					hw->phy.type = ixgbe_phy_sfp_unsupported;
+					status = IXGBE_ERR_SFP_NOT_SUPPORTED;
+				}
 			}
 		} else {
 			status = 0;

Re: [PATCH RFC] ixgbe: Module param "allow_any_sfp" for allowing unsupported SFP+ modules

[Jeff Kirsher]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 757 bytes --]

On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 15:46 +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> 
> Intel are limiting which SFP's can use in their NICs, due to support
> issues.
> This restriction comes from an EEPROM setting
> IXGBE_DEVICE_CAPS_ALLOW_ANY_SFP.
> This is for example the case with the 10Gbit/s X520-DA2 NIC.
> 
> Add a module param "allow_any_sfp", which can override the EEPROM
> setting, and allows any unsupported SFP+ module to be used.  When
> doing so, print disclaimer of unsupported usage.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@comx.dk>
> ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_phy.c |   23
> ++++++++++++++++++++---
>  1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) 

Thanks Jesper, I will add it to me queue of patches.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

RE: [E1000-devel] ixgbe: Unsupported SFP+ modules on 10Gbit/s X520-DA2 NIC?

[Fujinaka, Todd]

-----Original Message-----
From: Benny Amorsen [mailto:benny+usenet@amorsen.dk] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 1:45 PM
To: Brandeburg, Jesse
Cc: Jesper Dangaard Brouer; e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] ixgbe: Unsupported SFP+ modules on 10Gbit/s X520-DA2 NIC?

Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com> writes:

> For X520 adapters, the documentation[1] states that which SFP+ 
> adapters are/are not supported.  Direct attach cables are also 
> supported.
>
> [1] 
> http://www.intel.com/support/network/adapter/pro100/sb/CS-030612.htm

I can't believe that locked optics have now arrived on commodity hardware. I have been trying to migrate to all-Intel networking at work; that effort is certainly on hold now.


That's up to you. There's "locked" and there's "locked". I'm surprised
that Benny and Jesper haven't looked at the driver to see where the
messages come from.

We have a short list of optical modules that have been tested with our
cards. The problem with standards is that there's always some wiggle
room and you won't know if something really works until you try it. No
matter how large the company, we are still constrained as far as what we
can do in a day and testing every module we can find just wasn't one of
the things that was approved for us to try.

If you have an optical module you want to try, go ahead. You may have to
modify the code a bit (last time I checked it was only in a couple of
places) and if the module actually conforms to standards you could be
OK.

Sorry about the mail formatting. That's what the give us to use.

Todd Fujinaka
Technical Marketing Engineer
LAN Access Division (LAD)
Intel Corporation
todd.fujinaka@intel.com
(503) 712-4565

Re: [E1000-devel] ixgbe: Unsupported SFP+ modules on 10Gbit/s X520-DA2 NIC?

[Ben Greear]

On 01/18/2012 02:21 PM, Fujinaka, Todd wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benny Amorsen [mailto:benny+usenet@amorsen.dk]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 1:45 PM
> To: Brandeburg, Jesse
> Cc: Jesper Dangaard Brouer; e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; netdev@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] ixgbe: Unsupported SFP+ modules on 10Gbit/s X520-DA2 NIC?
>
> Jesse Brandeburg<jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>  writes:
>
>> For X520 adapters, the documentation[1] states that which SFP+
>> adapters are/are not supported.  Direct attach cables are also
>> supported.
>>
>> [1]
>> http://www.intel.com/support/network/adapter/pro100/sb/CS-030612.htm
>
> I can't believe that locked optics have now arrived on commodity hardware. I have been trying to migrate to all-Intel networking at work; that effort is certainly on hold now.
>
>
> That's up to you. There's "locked" and there's "locked". I'm surprised
> that Benny and Jesper haven't looked at the driver to see where the
> messages come from.

As a datapoint:  We had a customer trying to use a non-supported
SFP+ module in an 82599 NIC, and they hacked the driver to over-rule
the exclusion.  It sort of worked for them, but never well, and never
at any decent throughput.

Now, I have no idea if their SFP+ was decent or not, but at least in
some cases, just over-riding the driver doesn't fix things.

It does seem like Intel could offer a module option to easily over-ride the
SFP+ exclusion for folks that wanted to test new SFP+ modules for them,
however.

Thanks,
Ben

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com

Re: ixgbe: Unsupported SFP+ modules on 10Gbit/s X520-DA2 NIC?

[David Lamparter]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 02:40:47PM -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
> On 01/18/2012 02:21 PM, Fujinaka, Todd wrote:
> > Jesse Brandeburg<jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>  writes:
> >
> >> For X520 adapters, the documentation[1] states that which SFP+
> >> adapters are/are not supported.  Direct attach cables are also
> >> supported.
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> http://www.intel.com/support/network/adapter/pro100/sb/CS-030612.htm
> >
> > I can't believe that locked optics have now arrived on commodity hardware. I have been trying to migrate to all-Intel networking at work; that effort is certainly on hold now.
> >
> >
> > That's up to you. There's "locked" and there's "locked". I'm surprised
> > that Benny and Jesper haven't looked at the driver to see where the
> > messages come from.
> 
> As a datapoint:  We had a customer trying to use a non-supported
> SFP+ module in an 82599 NIC, and they hacked the driver to over-rule
> the exclusion.  It sort of worked for them, but never well, and never
> at any decent throughput.
> 
> Now, I have no idea if their SFP+ was decent or not, but at least in
> some cases, just over-riding the driver doesn't fix things.
> 
> It does seem like Intel could offer a module option to easily over-ride the
> SFP+ exclusion for folks that wanted to test new SFP+ modules for them,
> however.

Sorry, but the whole practice is complete and utter bullshit. And I'm
saying that as a hardware engineer.

For starters, there are only a handful manufacturers that actually make
SFPs. I don't have numbers but I'd claim Finisar, Avago and JDSU have
at least 50% of the market. (cf.
http://www.finisar.com/faq/Operational-Information:
"Who are some of the competitors in these businesses?
"Finisar competes primarily with Avago, CoAdna, JDSU, Oclaro, Opnext,
Oplink, and Sumitomo.")

(By the way, on 1G SFPs the original price is around $20, from where the
OEM sticker gets them up to $150 in bad cases [Cisco]. No idea how bad
it is with 10G.)

Also, the electrical parameters are not that hard to quantify and test.
The spec has minimum eye opening requirements, maximum jitter allowance,
etc. - if a vendor gets them wrong, they'll fail quite quickly.

Further, look at Flexoptix and their "reflash the SFP" business model.
(http://www.flexoptix.net/)

Oh and you even get the same OEM sticker on different real vendors.

Intel isn't making their own SFPs, and they're not getting SFPs with
custom tweaks on the electrical interface from SFP vendors.

You can always get a shitty transceiver if the vendor has a bad day, but
that's not gonna be bound to the OEM sticker.

(btw, bad SFPs manifest as CRC/FCS errors, not as bad throughput. If you
have bad throughput but no errors, the NIC's firmware is fucking with
you.)


-David


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
_______________________________________________
E1000-devel mailing list
E1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel
To learn more about Intel&#174; Ethernet, visit http://communities.intel.com/community/wired

Re: [E1000-devel] ixgbe: Unsupported SFP+ modules on 10Gbit/s X520-DA2 NIC?

[Chuck Anderson]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:21:58PM +0000, Fujinaka, Todd wrote:
> That's up to you. There's "locked" and there's "locked". I'm surprised
> that Benny and Jesper haven't looked at the driver to see where the
> messages come from.
> 
> We have a short list of optical modules that have been tested with our
> cards. The problem with standards is that there's always some wiggle
> room and you won't know if something really works until you try it. No
> matter how large the company, we are still constrained as far as what we
> can do in a day and testing every module we can find just wasn't one of
> the things that was approved for us to try.

I don't buy that argument.

We have Ethernet standards and we have IP standards and we have
SFP/SFP+ standards.  Did you test your 1000Base-T copper Ethernet
cards with every vendor of Ethernet hardware?  If not, did you lock
them out to talk to only "pre-approved" Ethernet switches?  Would you
have done so if there was a way to technically do so (perhaps via
LLDP)?

What about USB keyboards/mice?  Maybe Intel's chipsets can be locked
so only Intel USB keyboards work...and then we can all stop buying
Intel hardware.

The hardware and drivers should not be enforcing specific optics.  If
a user buys a crap optic, then that is their problem.  Just like if
they plug a crappy Cat3 RJ45 cable between the 1000Base-T NIC and the
switch.

Re: [E1000-devel] ixgbe: Unsupported SFP+ modules on 10Gbit/s X520-DA2 NIC?

[Simon Chen]

If short-range is fine for you, twinax is awesome...

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Chuck Anderson <cra@wpi.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:21:58PM +0000, Fujinaka, Todd wrote:
>> That's up to you. There's "locked" and there's "locked". I'm surprised
>> that Benny and Jesper haven't looked at the driver to see where the
>> messages come from.
>>
>> We have a short list of optical modules that have been tested with our
>> cards. The problem with standards is that there's always some wiggle
>> room and you won't know if something really works until you try it. No
>> matter how large the company, we are still constrained as far as what we
>> can do in a day and testing every module we can find just wasn't one of
>> the things that was approved for us to try.
>
> I don't buy that argument.
>
> We have Ethernet standards and we have IP standards and we have
> SFP/SFP+ standards.  Did you test your 1000Base-T copper Ethernet
> cards with every vendor of Ethernet hardware?  If not, did you lock
> them out to talk to only "pre-approved" Ethernet switches?  Would you
> have done so if there was a way to technically do so (perhaps via
> LLDP)?
>
> What about USB keyboards/mice?  Maybe Intel's chipsets can be locked
> so only Intel USB keyboards work...and then we can all stop buying
> Intel hardware.
>
> The hardware and drivers should not be enforcing specific optics.  If
> a user buys a crap optic, then that is their problem.  Just like if
> they plug a crappy Cat3 RJ45 cable between the 1000Base-T NIC and the
> switch.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html