Mailing List Archive

>
>
> Is this the norm for the Cisco 10/25 switches as well? I don't have any to
> test with at the moment.
>
> Cisco 3850's have some 1/10 uplink module ports that are identified as
Gigabit or TenGigabit based on the configuration. However, both types of
interfaces always exist logically, they just don't get used until you
configure/use the physical port one way or the other. On the other hand, I
have played with a number of 1/10/25 and 40/100 interfaces on the Nexus
line and the name and internal references remain the same regardless of the
configured use.

_Nathan
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

On 28/01/2020 14:49, Nathan Lannine wrote:
> Gigabit or TenGigabit based on the configuration. However, both
> types of interfaces always exist logically, they just don't get used
> until you configure/use the physical port one way or the other.

Yes, this is the Catalyst/IOS method -- which I don't mind as such on
routers (such as the TwinX ports on the 4900M) but it would get quite
confusing on higher density switches, particularly if you have 1/10/25?


> On the other hand, I have played with a number of 1/10/25 and 40/100
> interfaces on the Nexus line and the name and internal references
> remain the same regardless of the configured use.

I'm much more in favour of the Nexus/NX-OS naming method - everything
starts with 'Ethernet x/y' and that's SO much nicer. :)


--
Tom
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

At least on the Catalyst 9000 series it looks like they switched to always using the highest bandwidth that would potentially be available on that interface... just checked on a 9200L and a 9500-16X: The interface name is always TenGigabitEthernet, even if you use 1Gbit SFPs in them.

Much better imho, different interface names with different transceivers is just such a pain..


_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Or the way nexus does it - E for everything, best of all.

From: cisco-nsp <cisco-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net> On Behalf Of Gehring Kai
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 6:41 AM
To: Tom Hill <tom@ninjabadger.net>; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 10/25 interface behavior

This message originates from outside of your organisation.

At least on the Catalyst 9000 series it looks like they switched to always using the highest bandwidth that would potentially be available on that interface... just checked on a 9200L and a 9500-16X: The interface name is always TenGigabitEthernet, even if you use 1Gbit SFPs in them.

Much better imho, different interface names with different transceivers is just such a pain..


_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp<https://protect-eu.mimecast.com/s/kLbeCk5EVuQw9SQlMwE?domain=puck.nether.net>
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/<https://protect-eu.mimecast.com/s/uLn-ClOGVfZMxcqvKQV?domain=puck.nether.net>
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/