NetApp X66211B-5-C DAC Cable with Cisco 9500-32C

AhmedAl-Batoosh

Issue Overview:

We recently deployed a NetApp AFF C800 system with two network cards installed in slots 3 and 5. For connectivity, we are using the NetApp X66211B-5-C 5m QSFP28 Direct Attach Copper (DAC) Cable. However, when connecting this cable to a Cisco Catalyst 9500-32C (Q32) switch, we receive the error:
🚨 "Cable unsupported" 🚨

Questions & Challenges:

1. How can we resolve this compatibility issue?
2. Is there a site or tool to compare compatibility between NetApp and Cisco switches?
3. How can we verify if the NetApp X66211B-5-C cable is compatible with the Cisco 9500 Q32 or other Cisco switches?

note:

Cisco 9500 switch is running the latest firmware

andris

The X66211B-5-C cable is a standards-based 5m 100GBASE-CR4 cable that we have formally tested with our hardware products. It is known to interoperate well with many switch vendor products.

Cisco switch software (NX-OS, iOS) is known for actively calling out transceivers and cables as "unsupported" if they are not Cisco-branded products. Furthermore, Cisco TAC might become less helpful if 3rd party cables are being used - often requiring a Cisco-branded part to be used to progress with troubleshooting.

Answer for #1: 

The easiest path is to purchase Cisco cables, but that implies additional costs. 

If you search for this issue on the Internet, a common solution is to run these commands to help with 3rd-party compatibility with Catalyst switches (Info from this Cisco Community Forum thread )

no errdisable detect cause gbic-invalid

service unsupported-transceiver

Answer for #2 and #3:
NetApp Hardware Universe provides formal compatibility information between storage systems and supported back-end (cluster, storage, MetroCluster) switches.

But, NetApp does not formally document cable compatibility for front-end data networking use-cases. We have a more flexible policy. Using 3rd party optics/cables is permitted, as long as they are similar in technology and compliant with applicable Ethernet standards. Generally, you would avoid active copper and active optical technologies, unless we specifically have our own solutions for them (per HWU). If using another vendor’s cables/optics, best to stick with ones that are approved by the device/switch vendor.

In summary, for storage system front-end connectivity, the answer is “Try it – it might work.  YMMV”.

From a hardware support perspective, the customer or switch vendor is responsible any component replacement.