CodingBox Q&A Ask question

Genuine SFP-10G-SR modules identified as 'GE ZX' and non-functional in Catalyst C9500-48Y4C

Asked Active Viewed 149
2

The poster's Cisco Catalyst C9500-48Y4C switches (IOS XE 16.12.04 after an upgrade) refuse to work with a batch of genuine Cisco SFP-10G-SR modules (VID V03, serials AVD2231D3TE and AVD2231D3RW): 'show inventory' lists them as 'GE ZX' instead of 'SFP+ 10GBASE-SR' and the ports stay non-functional. On other C9500s running IOS XE 16.9.3, SFP-10G-SR-S modules (VID V01, serials AVD2147DCD3/AVD2147DCDC) show correctly. 'show idprom interface TwentyFiveGigE1/0/27 detail' for a failing module reports 'Transceiver Type: = GE ZX (23)', PID SFP-10G-SR, Vendor Name 'OEM', Vendor OUI 00.00.00, CLEI COUIA8NCAA, Cisco part number 10-2415-03, date code 19/12/13, Encoding 8B10B and 'Nominal bitrate = OC12/STM4 (600 Mbits/s)' with 40 km single-mode reach values, i.e. the EEPROM content of a 1G ZX optic. The poster asked whether the modules should be returned.

  • Hardware: Cisco Catalyst C9500-48Y4C
  • Transceivers: SFP-10G-SR (VID V03, failing), SFP-10G-SR-S (VID V01, working), third-party 10G SFP+ SR (workaround)
  • Form factor: SFP+

Symptoms / messages:

SFP-10G-SR listed as GE ZX in show inventory
Transceiver Type: = GE ZX (23)
Nominal bitrate = OC12/STM4 (600 Mbits/s)
Vendor Name = OEM / Vendor OUI = 00.00.00
10G port non-functional

Comments 4

Accepted answer

Accepted: this looks like a bug (or mis-programmed modules) and should be raised with Cisco TAC; the poster found no matching entry in the bug search tool.

dwdm_pilot

A respondent asked for the full 'show idprom interface <PORT> detail' output, which revealed the ZX-type EEPROM contents quoted above.

fiber_wolf

Another respondent said that once the SFP, the fiber patch and the firmware have all been swapped or upgraded, TAC and an RMA are the remaining step.

net_admin

As a workaround the poster installed third-party 10G SR modules in production and kept the failing Cisco modules installed elsewhere so a TAC case could be opened on them (the rest of the thread was truncated in the dump).

tx_eng18
Log in to comment. Log in