Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ubiquiti SFP Wizard

blog.ui.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–196 of 196 posts

Re: Ubiquiti SFP Wizard

#191

Post by bongodongobob »

tuetuopay wrote: post #94
bongodongobob wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have installed 100s of SFP connections and I've never had an issue with compatibility. I've never even heard of this. Is it just for some ultra high end products or something?

It's more for enterprise gear than anything. For example, enterprise Cisco gear will absolutely reject non-cisco optics, but datacenter gear won't. As an example, the Nexus 9000 line accepts non-cisco optics by default. Granted, those are 10k+ boxes so somewhat high-end but nowhere near the ASR line. The nexus line being more modern in spirit also helps. Catalysts still reject non-cisco optics without a configuration…

That is crazy. Thanks for the info, this is why I love this site.

Re: Ubiquiti SFP Wizard

#192

Post by justinclift »

tuetuopay wrote: post #94
bongodongobob wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have installed 100s of SFP connections and I've never had an issue with compatibility. I've never even heard of this. Is it just for some ultra high end products or something?

It's more for enterprise gear than anything. For example, enterprise Cisco gear will absolutely reject non-cisco optics, but datacenter gear won't. As an example, the Nexus 9000 line accepts non-cisco optics by default. Granted, those are 10k+ boxes so somewhat high-end but nowhere near the ASR line. The nexus line being more modern in spirit also helps. Catalysts still reject non-cisco optics without a configuration…

This is probably the relevant unlocking thread on Serve The Home:

https://forums.servethehome.com/index.php?threads/patching-i...

Re: Ubiquiti SFP Wizard

#193

Post by bnjms »

Sesse__ wrote: post #104
bnjms wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If your case was directly related to the SFP (“I can't get a link on this fiber port”), then yes, they could probably refuse it. I have zero doubt they will. But also you prove nothing and are doing yourself and the vendor a disservice if you fake it. There’s no telling what your 3rd party transceiver is doing incorrectly. Better to get one single supported sfp and get that fixed which will probably fix your other…

> But also you prove nothing and are doing yourself and the vendor a disservice if you fake it. There’s no telling what your 3rd party transceiver is doing incorrectly. If I report an IS-IS problem and the root cause is an OEM SFP on a completely unrelated port, then the design of the switch is pretty awful. :-)

Oh! I’m in complete agreement.

I’ve never heard of a vendor being so difficult. My comment applies only to interface errors. (Up/down status, rx/tx errors, fec issue, etc) Any vendor without an override for 3rd party sfp should be rejected after RFP.

Re: Ubiquiti SFP Wizard

#194

Post by [deleted] »

Maxious wrote: post #135
weinzierl wrote: post #130

"The SFP Wizard is a pocket-sized powerhouse that checks the health of any SFP or QSFP module and programs them in just seconds." I never knew you could program them. How smart are they? Are there ones capable of running Linux?

Yes, eg. This one runs a ssh server https://www.glbb.jp/en/hardware/gs3/

[deleted]

Re: Ubiquiti SFP Wizard

#195

Post by veegee »

MisterTea wrote: post #185
veegee wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DAC is always the best option for short runs in terms of cost and compatibility.

Agreed. I have a 10 Gb DAC connecting my workstation and a small server to a Mikrotik. They are way cheaper, use less electric, and run cooler compared to a UTP SFP. I don't like UTP for 10Gb as its both costly and less efficient though that is going to get better with time.

It won’t get much better because that’s just a limitation of how 10GBASE-T works. There’s never a good reason to use it. Always just use a DAC or fibre.

Re: Ubiquiti SFP Wizard

#196

Post by simoncion »

protocolture wrote: post #190
simoncion wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they get compromised they can run scripts, create blind proxies etc... How's that different from a Unifi AP? Unless they changed something in the past five, eight years, the software running on the AP is pretty much OpenWRT with the serial numbers hastily filed off. [0] Get a shell, and you get to download whatever to do whatever you need. [0] Me coming to this realization is what lead me to switch over to OpenW…

Mikrotik will let you do a lot of this without downloading new code, but you are correct. In my experience people find a simple vuln, log in, enable the blind proxy feature, and then use your network to evade netflix region blocking until you realise. Cambiums shell from memory is much further locked down. IIRC you need a possibly predictable password form cambo to do get full root shell on a lot of devices.

> IIRC you need a possibly predictable password form cambo to do get full root shell on a lot of devices.

If we're ignoring access-control-violating logic errors, then Mikrotik's shells are quite locked down. As you'd expect, you can provision multiple users with a variety of privs... and even make a user that has no configuration modification privs at all.

You can also very easily deny remote access to any credentials other than a username and SSH key. Good luck predicting an SSH key.

But if we're not ignoring coding errors that bypass access control, then I expect that Cambium is no less vulnerable than anything else out there. They're certainly using either BSD or Linux with some proprietary goop layered on top to make it look super sexy.

Post reply on HN