GLC-BX-D= / GLC-BX-U with Small Business Switches

[FSTAMM-2011]

Hi There

Do the following Moduls GLC-BX-D= / GLC-BX-U work with the Small Business Switches??

Best regards

[David Hornstein]

Hi felix,

Check out the URL below  for the  range of switches that have been validated to use the GLC-BX-D= and the GLC-BX-U=

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/interfaces_modules/transceiver_modules/compatibility/matrix/OL_6981.html

Also, the new 2960-C series seems to be missing, from the URL but should be considered.;

2960-C Series Switches

SFP	Support on Cisco Catalyst 2960-C
GLC-LH-SM=	Yes
GLC-SX-MM=	Yes
GLC-ZX-SM=	Yes
GLC-GE-100FX, GLC-T=	No
GLC-BX-D=, GLC-BX-U=	Yes
GLC-FE-100FX=	Yes
GLC-FE-100LX=	Yes
GLC-FE-100BX-D=, GLC-FE-100BX-U=	Yes
CWDM SFPs	Yes

But if you are going to take advantage of Bi-directional single fiber SFPs that are supported by traditional Cisco TAC, why not also make use of a  switch that is validated and supported by the same support team.

single throat to choke for post sales queries 

• The single fiber bi-directional SFP will save your end user  fiber. and therefore money,
• The use of the Catalyst 2960  even the compact versions 2960-C series  will make post sales support so much easier for a number of reasons

Both SFP and post sales support should really help you to think seriously about the use of the Catalyst 2960 series.

However feature rich  the  Small Business 200, 300, 500 or SxE20x0 series switches are , as far as I am aware, they have not been validated with the GLC-BX-D= or GLC-BX-U=

regards Dave

[FSTAMM-2011]

Hi Dave

Thank you for your answer!

In the meantime I found this moduls MFEBX1 with 100Base-BX20-U and MGBBX1 with 1000BASE-BX20-U which should work with the Small Business Switches.

I just wunder why there is no counterpart with 100Base-BX20-D or 1000BASE-BX20-D for Single-Fiber Bidirectional Applications?

Best regards

Felix

[David Hornstein]

Hi Felix

Some history regarding the intended use of MGBBX1.

I was rather pleased when my product management team bought out the MGBBX1, as I saw it as a way of better utilizing fiber plant and saving the end user some money. I was hoping to see a complimentary downstream version of the SFP come out as well, but this didn't happen.

I question the product manager, It was explained to me that for a number of reasons, which i will not mention,  that purpose of the MGBBX1 was to allow for Small Business (SB) switches to connect to Cisco Telco or Service Provider fiber switches. This was to allow my SB switch to be used for the triple play in a MDU or university dormitory environments.

Yep a great application, but hence the lack of a downstream Bidirectional SB SFP within the SB SFP protfolio. 

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

GLC-BX-D= has the following properties;

1000BASE-BX SFP single-strand SMF, 1490-nm TX / 1310-nm RX wavelength, single LC connector 

MGBBX1 has the following properties;

1000BASE-BX SFP single-strand SMF, 1310-nm TX / 1490-nm RX wavelength, single LC connector

So this mixture of  SB and traditional Cisco SFP  for distances up to 10km does seem complimentary and workable.

The use a Small Business 300 series switch with a MGBBX1  and a appropriate 2960 series switch with a GLC-BX-D= seems a workable combination for point to point applications. But not validated by our end to end testing team or Smart application testing team.

Again, I will stress my concern, that you may still be far better off just using appripriate Catalyst 2960 switches with the GLC-BX-D= and GLC-BX-U= , as you are then have only a single throat to choke for any post sales issues now and further down the road, what ever they may be. 

This fact alone,  could result in speedier problem resolution,  which far out weights the cost of the switches.

regards Dave