From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Sun Mar 22 23:24:28 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63130270E88 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 23:24:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dan@langille.org) Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48ltrV3B1hz4Gff; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 23:24:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dan@langille.org) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4D153FE; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 19:24:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap36 ([10.202.2.86]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 22 Mar 2020 19:24:23 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=langille.org; h= mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to:cc :subject:content-type; s=fm3; bh=gVKTcgZCApwTa7XrcTt17jSWlhAcEy0 Uq1/zXoJbnfE=; b=t3nU32ZVZa1XF3bdfqR9FlFGTRicsjC1+BKJxRzFIi/zSwM L9mrozAFhU8JSQrZE2VTq5g04gzMGtibcR1K/xtIQtx4IO6SCnHG7/4abQCIWhph 5rEexZdtAyT5B+o5HUO2Ak5UJ3B2QGe1eSfGsxPrEPUC+Flh9feFRrrDiycl/FNi fMBl8uhiDZiYpI3cjq4rfVmU4Xg6cvw4OT666tiLRI+e8PTqfcbLaXd97tmXHI4d kZBXe12HeIzdkWDDP8WKzIgo4reqICXUvd6J9s3fA63RrA433xfztom5Nf2Dlb3H T8+iTOP7E7Hkb12zV7Ld8fSEnD+/lRHn/kPjXXQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=gVKTcg ZCApwTa7XrcTt17jSWlhAcEy0Uq1/zXoJbnfE=; b=qYrYxdStqQDtRw7iovrJVI AOeq5nHhRX/QMh+JKl5HchXZvzX4kPKtfJ5dlSPLDlAoZieJAmPMv4TY4GYAmGgF TUSug08RLCiDQJlWgxJtwaJW1ukQOr+4ppclM3l2OW5bQGm7ACCevP0yLx6bCUiE mc+dp3YsO5FBrUoYn/X/81KEDeDh6AjDE8ufnmClkB1ch3BLglV6oAZDP7vsMV/J T+4oiw40xRVQW4A23B+hrmwnCU1ak3EXbFPjYrcG4Jhn7HaDXCkdzy+vRB851oY0 oTKyLiCfMiVF8xeH1hNpNT9t34amfiZyr3XK6faLzk0seyrQAlM44HOA8x9cAcyQ == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrudegiedgudejhecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsehttdertderredtnecuhfhrohhmpedfffgr nhcunfgrnhhgihhllhgvfdcuoegurghnsehlrghnghhilhhlvgdrohhrgheqnecuvehluh hsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepuggrnheslhgrnhhg ihhllhgvrdhorhhg X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id BE7431880062; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 19:24:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.1.7-1021-g152deaf-fmstable-20200319v1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <8141b371-5cdf-4f82-8959-5fa1071aa6dd@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20200322230339.GB5808@in-addr.com> References: <2A35EA60C3C77D438915767F458D6568B90935EC@ORSMSX111.amr.corp.intel.com> <20200322.214355.415142200.sthaug@nethelp.no> <20200322230339.GB5808@in-addr.com> Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 19:24:01 -0400 From: "Dan Langille" To: "Gary Palmer" Cc: sthaug@nethelp.no, "Pieper, Jeffrey E" , freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SFP+ on PRO/10GbE Content-Type: text/plain X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 48ltrV3B1hz4Gff X-Spamd-Bar: ----- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=langille.org header.s=fm3 header.b=t3nU32ZV; dkim=pass header.d=messagingengine.com header.s=fm2 header.b=qYrYxdSt; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=langille.org; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of dan@langille.org designates 64.147.123.24 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=dan@langille.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-5.58 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-0.999,0]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[langille.org:s=fm3,messagingengine.com:s=fm2]; XM_UA_NO_VERSION(0.01)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:64.147.123.24]; MV_CASE(0.50)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; URIBL_BLOCKED(0.00)[langille.org.multi.uribl.com,messagingengine.com.multi.uribl.com]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[langille.org:+,messagingengine.com:+]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[langille.org,none]; IP_SCORE(-3.49)[ip: (-9.81), ipnet: 64.147.123.0/24(-4.92), asn: 11403(-2.69), country: US(-0.05)]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[24.123.147.64.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.1]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:11403, ipnet:64.147.123.0/24, country:US]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_WWW(0.50)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 23:24:28 -0000 On Sun, Mar 22, 2020, at 7:03 PM, Gary Palmer wrote: > On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 05:11:20PM -0400, Dan Langille wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 22, 2020, at 4:43 PM, sthaug@nethelp.no wrote: > > > > Partial success. The card is now able to use an SFP+ optic. It warns me > > > > when the optic is installed: > > > > > > > > Mar 22 16:49:45 r720-01 kernel: WARNING: Intel (R) Network Connections are quality tested using Intel (R) Ethernet Optics. Using untested modules is not supported and may cause unstable operation or damage to the module or the adapter. Intel Corporation is not responsible for any harm caused by using untested modules. > > > > > > > > I cannot use an SFP+ optic at the switch. The connection just does not happen. > > > > > > > > If I go back to the original SFP optic, the connection occurs, as expected at 1G. > > > > > > > > On the switch side, I've tried a known good optic from an existing connection. > > > > > > > > I could install an PRO/10GbE instead, that has a built-in transceiver. I have > > > > two of those in use now, both working on 10G. > > > > > > Have you tried connected it to something other than the Unifi switch? > > > > The only SFP+ capable switches I have are Unifi. > > > > I just tried the other switch (US-48) which had one SFP+ port free. Same issues there. > > Did the Unifi switch see the SFP+ optics on the switch end? That port never lit up on the switch. I didn't check anything else, switch-related. > What happens if you take the SFP+ module from the server and put it in the > other Unifi switch and try establishing a link between the two switches? The two switches are already joined via SFP+ so I bet that would shut down the port in question. -- Dan Langille dan@langille.org