CodingBox Q&A Ask question

Top questions

Popular discussions about programming, compatibility and testing of optical transceivers.

355 questions
15 30 50 per page
2votes
2comments
111views

UDM Pro to US-16-150W over a 1 m Ubiquiti DAC: link light on the switch only, even with both ports forced to 1G

A UDM Pro (port 11 set to 1G) and a US-16-150W (port 17) connected by a 1 m Ubiquiti DAC (UDC-1) did not talk: the switch showed a link light, the UDM Pro showed nothing. Setting both sides to 1G and rebooting both devices did not help; reversing the cable and removing the parallel copper uplink…

2votes
1 answer
319views

Proxmox on a Dell R720 with X520 rNDC: ixgbe allow_unsupported_sfp=1 does not take effect for Cisco SR modules

A Dell R720 with the integrated i350/X520 daughter card ran Proxmox VE; Cisco-branded 10G multimode LC SFP+ modules that worked elsewhere were rejected as unsupported. Adding options ixgbe allowunsupportedsfp=1 to the module options had no visible effect. Respondents walked through GRUB kernel…

0votes
1 answer
54views

Writing to password-protected SFP/QSFP/XFP: where the password lives and how brute force works

Users needed to write to password-protected SFP/QSFP/XFP modules from HP, Cisco, Finisar and JDSU. The thread documents the two protection levels: a host/user password protecting the user-writable area (A2h offset 7Bh on SFP, A0h offset 7Bh on QSFP/XFP) and a manufacturer password protecting the…

2votes
1 answer
86views

Synology RS3614xs+ with an Intel X520-DA2: allow_unsupported_sfp ignored until set in the DSM-specific modules.conf keys

A Synology RS3614xs+ with a supported Intel X520-DA2 rejected the wrongly ordered SFP+ modules as unsupported. Putting options ixgbe allowunsupportedsfp=1 into /etc/modules.conf had no effcet, and even when the kernel log showed ixgbe: allowunsupportedsfp Enabled the driver still reported failed to…

1vote
1 answer
128views

CSS610-8G-2S+IN shows link on SFP+ ports but Intel X520 NICs never see it; SwOS 2.13rc12 works, later builds do not

A MikroTik CSS610-8G-2S+IN showed an active SFP+ link, but Intel X520-DA1/DA2 NICs (Windows, Linux, ESXi) reported no link, reproducibly across multiple transceiver pairs, DACs and two cards. Firmware 2.12, 2.13rc6, 2.13rc12, 2.13rc25 and the final 2.13 were tested. Hardware involved: MikroTik…

2votes
1 answer
106views

1G SFP on Intel X710 (pfSense, ixl) fails with unqualified module until the optic is recoded as Intel

On a Protectli Vault 6 with Intel X710 SFP+ ports (ixl0/ixl1) a 1G EZConn ETB43315-7S34-FR SFP showed no carrier. Logs contained Invalid advertised speed; valid flags are: 0x06, ixl1setlink: Error getting phy capabilities -37, aq error: 8 and Link failed because an unqualified module was detected!…

2votes
1 answer
263views

Missing 10G interface on Intel 82599/X520: enabling allow_unsupported_sfp persistently on CentOS and Ubuntu

A Linux server with an Intel 82599ES 10-Gigabit SFI/SFP+ controller showed no 10G interface and dmesg contained failed to load because an unsupported SFP+ or QSFP module type was detected after an untested SFP+ module was inserted. The article explains that the ixgbe driver only enables modules it…

2votes
2comments
144views

UniFi switches on firmware 7.2.123: SFP+ optics and DACs flap, STP flapping alerts, ports need reboot or forced 1G

After UniFi Network 10.0.140 / switch firmware 7.2.123 several operators saw SFP+ ports (UI optics, UACC-OM-MM-10G-D, MikroTik XS+DA0001 DACs, UACC-CM-RJ45-MG copper modules) flapping on US-XG-16, USW Pro Max, UDM Pro and USW-24-Pro units, with STP State Flapping alerts, ports blocked, and switches…

1vote
1comment
31views

SONiC test_check_sfp_using_ethtool fails on a Mellanox MSN4600C: Cannot get module EEPROM information: No such device

On a Mellanox MSN4600C (ACS-MSN4600C) running SONiC in a T1 topology, the test testchcksfpusingethtool failed because ethtool -m sfp[ID] returned rc=1 with Cannot get module EEPROM information: No such device, i.e. the module EEPROM was not accessible on that platform during the test. Hardware…

2votes
1 answer
225views

CBS350 SFP-10G-LR link only comes up when the TX fiber is inserted before RX; faulty transceiver pair

While rolling out single-mode fiber between Cisco CBS350-8MGP-2X switches (firmware 3.4.0.17) with SFP-10G-LR modules, the poster hit strange behaviour: the link only comes up if the duplex LC connector is split and the TX fiber is inserted first, then the RX fiber. Inserting the joined LC…

1vote
1comment
32views

Aruba Instant On 1930 24+4SFP: all SFP ports dead after a power outage, LED blinks once and stops

After a power outage an Aruba Instant On 1930 (24 ports plus 4 SFP) still recognised inserted SFP modules but every SFP port stayed down; inserting a new transceiver made the port LED blink once and then nothing. The poster asked for diagnostics or replacement options. Hardware involved: Aruba…

3votes
2comments
145views

Genuine Aruba J9151E SFP+ shows Unsupported Transceiver (SelfTest Err#128000) on 2930F switches

On Aruba 2930F switches (JL255A) the poster installed new J9151E 10G SFP+ transceivers (part 1990-4727) that the transceiver guide lists as supported, but every unit was reported as Unsupported Transceiver (SelfTest Err#128000) and show tech transceivers showed ?? for type and serial. J9281D DACs…

4votes
2comments
314views

Catalyst C9300X-24Y resets FEC to auto when an SFP-H25G-CU2M DAC is inserted, breaking the link to a FortiGate

The poster connects a Cisco Catalyst C9300X-24Y to a FortiGate firewall with a 25G SFP-H25G-CU2M DAC. Whenever the DAC is inserted the switch logs '%PLATFORMPM-6-MODULEINSERTED: SFP module inserted with interface name Twe1/0/23' followed by '%PLATFORMPM-6-DIFFERENTMODULEINSERTED: Warning: SFP…

3votes
2comments
269views

Which SFP+ modules to buy for EdgeSwitch 48 Lite uplinks and an Intel X710-DA2 server NIC

The poster planned a server with an Intel X710-DA2 dual-port SFP+ NIC connected to two Ubiquiti EdgeSwitch 48 Lite units, with LACP between the switches. Six 10G SFP+ modules were needed (two for the server side, four for the switches) and the question was which modules would be recognised by both…