Fiber connection from switch to server-No Link

  • 7 December 2016
  • 18 replies
  • 503 views

Hello Everyone,
I have an Enterasys B5K124-48P2 with a FTLX8571D3BCL-EX SR SFP+ module installed in port 49.
On the other end is a Lenovo 650 with an Intel x520 card and an Intel FTLX8571D3BCV-IT module.
I am using MM 50/125 Tripp Lite patch cable.

The switch recognizes the SFP and no issues jump out that I can see. The card in the server appears to be working fine as well. I did manually set the speed on the server card to 10GB instead of Auto.

Added bonus, I'm pretty new to Extreme/Enterasys and my knowledge of fiber is weak.

I'm not getting a link light between the two of them. Windows reports the cable is unplugged, and the switch is giving me "operator down".

Can anyone give me an idea as to what my next steps would be?
Thanks

18 replies

what is your fiber protocol ? LX, SX, etc.
what is your fiber protocol ? LX, SX, etc.I "believe" it's SX. Both of those transceivers are the short run over MM. I'm not sure where else I verify that..
what is your fiber protocol ? LX, SX, etc.check the hardware itself. if its SX, make sure both devices run that
fiber, sfp protocol
Userlevel 2
I would let your NIC on the server autonegotiate first. It should negotiate at 10G.
I was going to tell you to force the port on the B5 to 10G but I'm not sure you can do that at that rate. I'm only seeing options for 1000.
I disagree. auto speed/dupex rarely works. specify on both ends, switch and nic
Userlevel 2
I disagree. auto speed/dupex rarely works. specify on both ends, switch and nicI was referring to his statement that he forced his server NIC to 10G. I'd let it autonegotiate.
Also, how do you force the B switch to 10G full?
I disagree. auto speed/dupex rarely works. specify on both ends, switch and nicI think that switch only supports 10GB

CHS-MDF-B5(su)->show port status tg.1.49 Alias Oper Admin Speed
Port (truncated) Status Status (bps) Duplex Type
--------- ------------ ------- ------- --------- ------- ------------
tg.1.49 CHS-MDF-710 Down Up 10G full SFP+
Userlevel 4
I disagree. auto speed/dupex rarely works. specify on both ends, switch and nicThe 10g ports on the C5/B5 platforms are fixed. S/K may support both 1g and 10g optics.
Userlevel 7
I disagree. auto speed/dupex rarely works. specify on both ends, switch and nicLet me correct the post above:
B5K does have two ports fixed 10G.
C5K does have two ports 1G/10G = dual speed. = http://learn.extremenetworks.com/rs/extreme/images/C-Series-DS.pdf
Userlevel 4
I disagree. auto speed/dupex rarely works. specify on both ends, switch and nicI stand corrected on the C5
Userlevel 2
Roger, might he need to flip the A and B on the fiber strands? Just another thought.
valid thought Rich...what is the fiber interface type...I would assume LX connectors, so switch pairs at the LIU
valid thought Rich...what is the fiber interface type...I would assume LX connectors, so switch pairs at the LIULC
Userlevel 7
I would check "loop" connection B5K - transceiver - patch cable - transceiver - B5K. If that works you will know that those components are good. Good luck
Userlevel 6
Just FYI there is no "auto negotiate" for any 10 gig link... Was not part of the standard. Also in our 6000 or so active edge interfaces going to all kinds of network devices and gear on 100/1000 connections Auto-Auto is the best for anything under 5 years old between vendors. We have nore issues with the 5 to 10 % hard coded interfaces not coming up or coming up half duplex due to technician doing the deployment not knowing to hard code or not hard coding it correctly.
Userlevel 7
Just FYI there is no "auto negotiate" for any 10 gig link... Was not part of the standard. Also in our 6000 or so active edge interfaces going to all kinds of network devices and gear on 100/1000 connections Auto-Auto is the best for anything under 5 years old between vendors. We have nore issues with the 5 to 10 % hard coded interfaces not coming up or coming up half duplex due to technician doing the deployment not knowing to hard code or not hard coding it correctly.

I would extend the prefer auto-auto time frame to the last ten years, at least. 😉
Userlevel 2
Good info. It's nice to see a Layer 1 discussion every once in a while 🙂

Reply