cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
375
Views
0
Helpful
12
Replies
sokarlsson
Beginner

GLC-GE-100FX in Cat 9000 with NM-4G

Have anyone tested getting GLC-GE-100FX working on NM-4G in a Cat 9200? Have tried with ver 16.12.4 and 17.3.4b. 

In both cases show inventory looks a bit strange: No PID is read from the SFP

switch#show inventory
NAME: "c92xx Stack", DESCR: "c92xx Stack"
PID: C9200-24P , VID: V01 , SN: JAE2518079J

 

NAME: "Switch 1", DESCR: "C9200-24P"
PID: C9200-24P , VID: V01 , SN: JAE2518079J

 

NAME: "Switch 1 - Power Supply A", DESCR: "Switch 1 - Power Supply A"
PID: PWR-C6-600WAC , VID: V01 , SN: ART2509F236

 

NAME: "Switch 1 FRU Uplink Module 1", DESCR: "4x1G Uplink Module"
PID: C9200-NM-4G , VID: V02 , SN: JAE25160SKQ

 

NAME: "Gi1/1/4", DESCR: "100BaseFX SFP"
PID: , VID: , SN: OPC10092039

The switch recognize the SFp but it takes about 20sec before it's registered on the interface. Stick in a GLC-SX-MM and it's registered after 5sec 

The problem I have is that I never get link up. Tried with auto speed and duplex, auto speed and full duplex and speed 100 and full duplex. No link. No matter what is in the remote end (Cat2960x, C9200 or IE3200)

 

On a Cat 2960 one can insert the SFP withn auto speed and duplex and the link comes up half-duplex. Or set duplex to full and that works fine as well.

 

 

If I try the SFP model in a Cat 2960x it lists the SFP with pid.

C2960X# show inventory
NAME: "1", DESCR: "WS-C2960XR-24TS-I"
PID: WS-C2960XR-24TS-I , VID: V06 , SN: FDO2133B03L

 

NAME: "Switch 1 - Power Supply 1", DESCR: "FRU Power Supply"
PID: PWR-C2-250WAC , VID: V03L , SN: LIT21283MYE

 

NAME: "Switch 1 - Power Supply 2", DESCR: "FRU Power Supply"
PID: PWR-C2-250WAC , VID: V03L , SN: LIT21132GEE

 

NAME: "Switch 1 - FlexStackPlus Module", DESCR: "Stacking Module"
PID: C2960X-STACK , VID: V02 , SN: FDO212520N9

 

NAME: "GigabitEthernet1/0/25", DESCR: "100BaseFX SFP"
PID: GLC-GE-100FX , VID: v01 , SN: OPC10092039

 

Diff between interface on Cat 9200 and C2960X with the SFP inserted and the only command set is "duplex full"

# Cat9200

GigabitEthernet1/1/4 is down, line protocol is down (notconnect)
Hardware is Gigabit Ethernet, address is bcd2.95cd.301c (bia bcd2.95cd.301c)
MTU 1500 bytes, BW 1000000 Kbit/sec, DLY 10 usec,
reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255
Encapsulation ARPA, loopback not set
Keepalive not set
Full-duplex, 100Mb/s, link type is force-up, media type is 100BaseFX SFP
input flow-control is on, output flow-control is unsupported

 

# Cat 2960X

GigabitEthernet1/0/25 is down, line protocol is down (notconnect)
Hardware is Gigabit Ethernet, address is 701f.53a6.7199 (bia 701f.53a6.7199)
MTU 1500 bytes, BW 100000 Kbit/sec, DLY 100 usec,
reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255
Encapsulation ARPA, loopback not set
Keepalive not set
Full-duplex, Auto-speed, link type is auto, media type is 100BaseFX SFP
input flow-control is off, output flow-control is unsupported

 

Any ideas on port settings?

 

 

12 REPLIES 12
balaji.bandi
VIP Guru

Try setting up hard coded speed to 100 (since i see SFP 100MB)

or try no speed nonegotiate or speed nonegotiate

 

config t

Interface GigabitEthernetx/x
speed 100

BB

***** Rate All Helpful Responses *****

How to Ask The Cisco Community for Help

Hi BB,

Yes, I have tried that as well. Forgot to mention that part.

Speed 100 or speed nonegotiate has to be set before inserting the SPF both on Cat9200 and Cat2960X else the command can't be used on the port.

Both commands are removed from the config (show running) by IOS when inserting the SFP but show interface Gi x/x/x reflects that speed noneg is still set with "link type is force-up" on the output, even though the config on the port do not show it. 

Tried combinations but same problem: No link on the Catalyst 9200.

how far each other ? what cable is this ? have you changed and check the fibre cables ?

 

BB

***** Rate All Helpful Responses *****

How to Ask The Cisco Community for Help

Tested several 62,5/125 to OM4 50/125. Today I was in the lab with just a 3m OM4 cable interconnecting. The SFPs works fine in C2960x with same cabling (both in lab and at deployment), the problem is when we try to use them in C9200.

After a close Look i did not see any PID here on 9200 - 

 

NAME: "Gi1/1/4", DESCR: "100BaseFX SFP"
PID: , VID: , SN: OPC10092039

 

when i check compatable GLC-GE-100FX- it only support certain IOS XE - 

 

image.png

 

Why do you only after 100MB why not get 1GB SFP to resolve the issue  - until you have any reason if you keep looking for 100MB SFP you need to get on one of the IOS versions to test it..

 

 

BB

***** Rate All Helpful Responses *****

How to Ask The Cisco Community for Help

If you read the TMG Matrix, all those are minimum versions

C9200

  Transceiver Description Software ReleaseNetwork Device Product ID Transceiver Product ID Data Rate Form Factor Max. Reach Cable Type Media Connector Type Transceiver Type Case Temp DOM HW Capable Minimum DOM SW
C9200-NM-4G GLC-GE-100FX 100 MbpsSFP2kmDuplex FiberMMFLC (PC or UPC)Optic0 to 70CNIOS XE 16.10.1
 GLC-GE-100FX 100 MbpsSFP2kmDuplex FiberMMFLC (PC or UPC)Optic0 to 70CNIOS XE 17.3.1
C9200-NM-4X GLC-GE-100FX 100 MbpsSFP2kmDuplex FiberMMFLC (PC or UPC)Optic0 to 70CNIOS XE 16.10.1
 GLC-GE-100FX 100 MbpsSFP2kmDuplex FiberMMFLC (PC or UPC)Optic0 to 70CNIOS XE 16.12.2
 GLC-GE-100FX 100 MbpsSFP2kmDuplex FiberMMFLC (PC or UPC)Optic0 to 70CNIOS XE 17.3.1
C9200-NM-2Y GLC-GE-100FX 100 MbpsSFP2kmDuplex FiberMMFLC (PC or UPC)Optic0 to 70CNIOS XE 16.12.2
 
As I wrote in the first post, I have tested on 16.12.4 and 17.3.4b. Both supported versions with NM-4G and nothing in the bug search except regarding NM-4X
Would be happy if I had a free choice of SFP but the end equipment that is supposed to connect to the C9200 only support specific SFPs and the max supported line rate is 100Mbps and we can't use copper.
 
Going to open a case with TAC if no one here have successfully managed to get this SFP to work in C9200. Wanted to give the community a shot before I bother TAC.
 

Hmm copy paste from TM Matrix didn't turn out so flash. attached a screenshot instead

as i mentioned may be the version you testing maybe not work. it may be working in a certain version

 

when i check compatible GLC-GE-100FX- it only supports certain IOS XE

 

don't have old 100SFP, worth open TAC case to investigate for you.

 

when you give Fibre loop on Cat 9200, did the port come up ?

get another SFP from 2960 connect to another port in gigbit, for testing just connect fibre patch is the ports come up (maybe STP loop, but check if that works (if not in production)

 

BB

***** Rate All Helpful Responses *****

How to Ask The Cisco Community for Help

This might sound harsh but all the versions you listed are minimum versions. See my screenshot from the TMG Matrix

Leo L
VIP Community Legend

(Do not trust the information found in TMG because they are not regularly updated.)

Look for 3rd party (non-Cisco branded optics) optics.  An example would be FS.com.

The reason why I recommend this way is because Cisco's brand of optics often introduce more bugs than 3rd party.  Another reason is 3rd party optics tend to be useable before Cisco can knock up a firmware.  For instance, people have already been using 3rd party 10 Gbps copper eight to nine months before Cisco released the SFP-10G-T-X.

Hi Leo
We have tried with 3rd party SFPs as well. We actually started out with two different 3rd party brands of SFPs. Then went to Cisco since we have had problems with 3rd party SFPs and the Cat 9000 series. 

This might sound harsh but all the versions you listed are minimum versions. See my screenshot from the TMG Matrix

There is nothing we meant to be harsh here, depending on how you read them.

 

what we suggesting here, 100MB is too old SFP, as I mentioned and suggested if you are keen on this, you need to try different IOS which works or Raise a TAC case to investigate for you since cisco mentioned supported matrix - this will go more time consuming than i buy 1GB SFP that easy to fix the issue.

 

So i will leave the decision to you. which path you like to take.

 

 

BB

***** Rate All Helpful Responses *****

How to Ask The Cisco Community for Help