From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 2 19:24:03 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2C9A4E3 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 19:24:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.bsdinfo.com.br (mail.bsdinfo.com.br [67.212.89.78]) (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 7EE35287D for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 19:24:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.bsdinfo.com.br (mail.bsdinfo.com.br [127.0.0.1]) by mail.bsdinfo.com.br (Postfix) with ESMTP id D42C9139CE for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 16:24:22 -0300 (BRT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=bsdinfo.com.br; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type :in-reply-to:references:subject:subject:to:mime-version :user-agent:from:from:date:date:message-id; s=dkim; t= 1404329041; x=1405193042; bh=ScMwVx8noNYwJ2pwfZ+L3XAbbjuaunV2yJf LfpMWFEQ=; b=ZHfg9eRvhMqRph8chwaj1v3oSkHMMIThVhNwVDRvoAo/3s+dvHe Zdzu39bII7o6diLcZvDOZqcHNj47O0Fa7/M3rYm813VOVRR8Jqy+cmnfCMKyozd7 WlzJEUpyVJzAh3eKFFOWndxfR6sLHm02GByT2vSlIcvUTzp1WkhWRMw8= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.bsdinfo.com.br Received: from mail.bsdinfo.com.br ([127.0.0.1]) by mail.bsdinfo.com.br (mail.bsdinfo.com.br [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d8wK4biXXdad for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 16:24:01 -0300 (BRT) Received: from [192.168.10.208] (unknown [186.193.54.69]) by mail.bsdinfo.com.br (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0B781139CD; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 16:24:00 -0300 (BRT) Message-ID: <53B45C33.1010501@bsdinfo.com.br> Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 16:23:31 -0300 From: Marcelo Gondim User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sthaug@nethelp.no, jeffrey.e.pieper@intel.com Subject: Re: Network Intel X520-SR2 stopping References: <53B3F1B6.9010606@bsdinfo.com.br> <2A35EA60C3C77D438915767F458D65687E8F859E@ORSMSX111.amr.corp.intel.com> <20140702.190739.74686622.sthaug@nethelp.no> In-Reply-To: <20140702.190739.74686622.sthaug@nethelp.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 19:24:03 -0000 Em 02/07/2014 14:07, sthaug@nethelp.no escreveu: >> Is there any way that you can try a reproduce this using a B2B configuration, or something that doesn't use XFP as a link partner? I'm thinking that you are correct regarding an incompatibility issue between SFP+ and XFP. > Why do you believe that? The optical signals are the same for SFP+ > and XFP. > > We have lots of 10G SFP+ / XFP links in production. It just works... > > Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no > I think I found the problem. Our SFP+ optical module is 850nm MMF and our transport operator is using an XFP 1310nmMMF. I am waiting for them to exchange the module and see the result. Once the module is changed, I post here. Thanks and best regards, Gondim