cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
15992
Views
3
Helpful
6
Replies

WS-C3750G-12S using known-good non Cisco SFP and getting bad CRC errors

addylamlappun
Level 1
Level 1

Please advise, and thanks in advance.

I have a new WS-C3750G-12S running 12.2(25)SEB2 and since I have working SFPs around so I thought I could just order this switch without any SFPs. I installed my good SFPs and when the 3750 boots up, I get the following messages:

00:40:50: %GBIC_SECURITY_CRYPT-4-VN_DATA_CRC_ERROR: GBIC in port 65537 has bad crc

00:40:50: %PM-4-ERR_DISABLE: gbic-invalid error detected on Gi1/0/1, putting Gi1/0/1 in err-disable state

00:41:00: %GBIC_SECURITY_CRYPT-4-VN_DATA_CRC_ERROR: GBIC in port 65538 has bad crc

00:41:00: %PM-4-ERR_DISABLE: gbic-invalid error detected on Gi1/0/2, putting Gi1/0/2 in err-disable state

00:41:13: %GBIC_SECURITY_CRYPT-4-VN_DATA_CRC_ERROR: GBIC in port 65539 has bad crc

00:41:13: %PM-4-ERR_DISABLE: gbic-invalid error detected on Gi1/0/3, putting Gi1/0/3 in err-disable state

00:41:27: %GBIC_SECURITY_CRYPT-4-VN_DATA_CRC_ERROR: GBIC in port 65540 has bad crc

00:41:27: %PM-4-ERR_DISABLE: gbic-invalid error detected on Gi1/0/4, putting Gi1/0/4 in err-disable state

00:41:37: %GBIC_SECURITY_CRYPT-4-VN_DATA_CRC_ERROR: GBIC in port 65541 has bad crc

00:41:37: %PM-4-ERR_DISABLE: gbic-invalid error detected on Gi1/0/5, putting Gi1/0/5 in err-disable state

00:41:49: %GBIC_SECURITY_CRYPT-4-VN_DATA_CRC_ERROR: GBIC in port 65542 has bad crc

00:41:49: %PM-4-ERR_DISABLE: gbic-invalid error detected on Gi1/0/6, putting Gi1/0/6 in err-disable state

00:42:08: %GBIC_SECURITY_CRYPT-4-VN_DATA_CRC_ERROR: GBIC in port 65543 has bad crc

00:42:08: %PM-4-ERR_DISABLE: gbic-invalid error detected on Gi1/0/7, putting Gi1/0/7 in err-disable state

00:42:13: %GBIC_SECURITY_CRYPT-4-VN_DATA_CRC_ERROR: GBIC in port 65544 has bad crc

00:42:13: %PM-4-ERR_DISABLE: gbic-invalid error detected on Gi1/0/8, putting Gi1/0/8 in err-disable state

00:42:21: %GBIC_SECURITY_CRYPT-4-VN_DATA_CRC_ERROR: GBIC in port 65545 has bad crc

00:42:21: %PM-4-ERR_DISABLE: gbic-invalid error detected on Gi1/0/9, putting Gi1/0/9 in err-disable state

00:42:26: %GBIC_SECURITY_CRYPT-4-VN_DATA_CRC_ERROR: GBIC in port 65546 has bad crc

00:42:26: %PM-4-ERR_DISABLE: gbic-invalid error detected on Gi1/0/10, putting Gi1/0/10 in err-disable state

00:42:33: %GBIC_SECURITY_CRYPT-4-VN_DATA_CRC_ERROR: GBIC in port 65547 has bad crc

00:42:33: %PM-4-ERR_DISABLE: gbic-invalid error detected on Gi1/0/11, putting Gi1/0/11 in err-disable state

00:42:38: %GBIC_SECURITY_CRYPT-4-VN_DATA_CRC_ERROR: GBIC in port 65548 has bad crc

00:42:38: %PM-4-ERR_DISABLE: gbic-invalid error detected on Gi1/0/12, putting Gi1/0/12 in err-disable state

Switch>

I then unplugged all the SFPs except for two, and put in the following command which got rid of err-disable state message, but still got the bad CRC messages.

Betelgeuse(config)#no errdisable detect cause gbic-invalid

00:01:02: %GBIC_SECURITY_CRYPT-4-VN_DATA_CRC_ERROR: GBIC in port 65537 has bad crc

00:01:02: %GBIC_SECURITY_CRYPT-4-VN_DATA_CRC_ERROR: GBIC in port 65540 has bad crc

I also have a Catalyst 3750G-24TS-1U which also shows the same messages. My question is if there is a chance that I can use industry-standard SFPs for the 3750 and what are the commands to enable this. Thanks.

6 Replies 6

Prashanth Krishnappa
Cisco Employee
Cisco Employee

Only Cisco GBICs will work with Catalyst3750. The IOS will check for the EEPROM on the GBIC to verify if it is a Cisco GBIC and this check cannot be disabled.

Hi prkrishn,

Thanks for your update. I have a couple of follow-up questions now that I have acquired some Cisco approved 3rd party SFP and I am not see these errors upon SFP insertion. I took 1 SFP from the lot and verified that it works on someone else's 3750 (link up), but when I inserted that SFP into my 3750, my connection does not come up. This is a 3750-12S in a stack with a 3750-24TS-1U running a different code.

- How do I know if the 3750 recognizes the SFP and tells if it is compatible?

- Do I need to do any special setup to get the port to come up as port is set. Ports are set to access mode.

Thanks for your help.

Is there a difference in IOS versions on these 2 3750's? I seem to remember reading in some release notes that Cisco have removed this restriction with non-cisco SFP's. (It was either release notes or a partner update email but I can't seem to find it).

It may be worth just updating your 3750 to the latest IOS (12.2(25)SEC) and see if the SFP is recognised.

HTH

Andy

Actually 12.2(25)SE and has this capability but needs to be turned on using the command "service unsupported-transceiver"

3750#conf t

Enter configuration commands, one per line. End with CNTL/Z.

3750(config)#service unsupported-transceiver

Warning: When Cisco determines that a fault or defect can be traced to

the use of third-party transceivers installed by a customer or reseller,

then, at Cisco's discretion, Cisco may withhold support under warranty or

a Cisco support program. In the course of providing support for a Cisco

networking product Cisco may require that the end user install Cisco

transceivers if Cisco determines that removing third-party parts will

assist Cisco in diagnosing the cause of a support issue.

3750(config)#

You can use "sh idprom interface gigabitEthernet" command.

Switch#sh idprom interface gigabitEthernet 2/0/1

General SFP Information

-----------------------------------------------

Identifier : 0x03

Connector : 0x07

Transceiver : 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x01 0x20 0x40 0x0C 0x00

Encoding : 0x01

BR_Nominal : 0x0C

Vendor Name : CISCO-AGILENT

Vendor Part Number : QFBR-5798L

Vendor Revision : 0x20 0x20 0x20 0x20

Vendor Serial Number : Axxxxxxxx

-----------------------------------------------

aabuzahr
Cisco Employee
Cisco Employee

you can refer to the document below

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/interfaces-modules/gbics/200296-Unsupported-GBIC-SFP-in-sub-module-of.html

 

However, it's not recommended to use a third party part - only Cisco manufactured

 

and there's a related bug:

https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCvg95411/?rfs=iqvred