[HN Gopher] Ubiquiti SFP Wizard
___________________________________________________________________
Ubiquiti SFP Wizard
Author : eXpl0it3r
Score : 181 points
Date : 2025-10-28 13:48 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.ui.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.ui.com)
| bedhead wrote:
| Most innovative and disruptive (and generally just profoundly
| interesting) company that hardly anyone knows about in the grand
| scheme of things.
| carlgreene wrote:
| This is not for me as I'm not a professional network engineer,
| but I do want to say that Ubiquiti has made home networking SO
| fun for me. Everything truly "Just Works."
|
| My setup is definitely more on the prosumer side, but it's been
| so build out and inspect my network with their tools.
| xyst wrote:
| I don't know about it "just works." Still have to perform a
| monthly reboot of equipment otherwise performance kind of drops
| off.
|
| Still 100X better than the competition though. My UDM has
| worked wonderfully with support for dual IPs and seamless
| failover
| petepete wrote:
| This is exactly how it is for me too. Everything truly "just
| worked" - except Sonos, but that's not a Unifi problem - they
| even have a dedicated page in their docs on how to set up Sonos
| systems, which I followed exactly, and it now works a treat.
| johnmaguire wrote:
| I wish I could say that Unifi has just worked for me, but any
| time I add a new Unifi device to the network (say a new
| switch, or just recently a U6 range extender), my network
| gets incredibly unstable until I manually restart every UniFi
| device on the network, sometimes multiple times. (i.e. Some
| devices won't connect to WiFi due to DHCP IP configuration
| errors.) And that's after getting the device adopted, which
| generally takes multiple retries.
|
| I've also had three instances where upon rebooting due to a
| power outage or a system update, my inbound firewall / port
| forwarding was just broken. UniFi simply did not pass packets
| to my server. Once again, a full reboot of every UniFi device
| on the network resolved it.
|
| I really want to like UniFi, and I appreciate how much access
| I have to SSH in and figure out what's going on (and I did
| take tcpdumps and have a support case open), but it has
| definitely not been plug-and-play for me.
|
| I'm using a UDR7, U7 Lite, a number of managed UniFi
| switches, and just recently added the U6 extender.
| fullstop wrote:
| I just wanted to chime in and say that this hasn't been my
| experience. It sounds like you have some other sort of
| problem if it takes multiple attempts to adopt.
| newsclues wrote:
| Sounds strange to me as well, ubnt has been the apple
| networking experience
| sz4kerto wrote:
| The 7 series has many problems. They'll eventually work
| it out, but it seems to be a bit more problematic than
| usual.
| fullstop wrote:
| I do not have any of the 7 series yet, and perhaps that
| is the difference.
| daveidol wrote:
| Do you think it'd be worth upgrading over TP Link Omada
| hardware?
| jakeydus wrote:
| I made the switch to Ubiquiti from TP Link last year. 1000%
| worth it. The "Just Works (tm)" thing is true, but the
| ceiling of what you can do with it is so much higher. I'll
| also say that the Unifi nerds out there are legion and you
| can find support and comment threads all over the place for
| pretty much any project you want to do.
| beala wrote:
| All the complaints about Ubiquiti in this thread from a few
| months ago dissuaded me from investing in their gear:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44746603
|
| I ended up going with TP-Link Omada and have been happy so
| far (a managed switch and wifi 6 WAPs). I am a bit concerned
| about their security track record given how bad their soho
| products are, so I ended up sticking with my opnsense router
| at the perimeter as the first line of defense.
|
| I'm curious to hear what you think you're missing out on with
| Omada.
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| The two biggest complaints in that thread (Edgerouter
| support abandoned, and VLAN issue unacknowledged and
| unfixed) were both wrong. Overall, it is a great, easy,
| inexpensive set of products.
| mastax wrote:
| I made the same conclusions but got burned with Omada.
| Cheaper, yes, but fewer features and buggier than Unifi
| (and that's a pretty low bar). I migrated back to Unifi.
| beala wrote:
| I don't think I've run into any bugs, but there are also
| entire sections of the controller I haven't explored yet.
| I have a pretty typical homelab style setup with multiple
| wifi SSIDs for trusted devices and untrusted devices, and
| several VLANs to isolate them. I guess it's good to know
| rumors of Ubiquiti's death have been greatly exaggerated
| in case my Omada hardware starts acting up.
| xoa wrote:
| > _I am a bit concerned about their security track record
| given how bad their soho products are, so I ended up
| sticking with my opnsense router at the perimeter as the
| first line of defense._
|
| Ubiquiti has had plenty of bad security issues as well I'm
| afraid, but fundamentally one of the advantages of both is
| that with a self-hostable controller and VLAN isolation you
| should be able to minimize your attack area pretty well
| from both the LAN and WAN. No remote dependencies at all.
| But like you I run OPNsense at the edge, you do at least
| have to trust their firewall and such if you want to go
| full single-pane.
| mbesto wrote:
| I've used both and was super interested to use Omada because
| of its price and performance. Honestly, Ubiquiti is just so
| much easier. The whole controller model for Omada tries to be
| way more "enterprisey" at the cost of a SOHO ease of use.
| xoa wrote:
| Based on having migrated multiple clients from UniFi to Omada
| but still has UniFi deployed across a few sites too, I'll
| give you a different take from the replies you've gotten so
| far. TP-Link's Omada is a newer, direct competitor to UniFi,
| and when it came out Ubiquiti was an absolute fucking
| dumpster fire in terms of, well, everything. Their software,
| hardware, and even the forums (which they killed in favor of
| the current mess). Their gateway/routing/network service
| story sucked, they were missing key features, their firmware
| was rotting in basic ways (like ssh being so old it literally
| included only insecure ciphers and you couldn't even connect
| to it anymore without + options), and finally were also
| starting to make more and more concerning and ugly choices
| that pointed towards serious organization issues (constant UI
| bike shedding churn in favor of ancient features and bugs
| they'd agreed were important) and enshitification (tying
| software applications to required hardware). However, they
| were also the only player doing that sort of fully self-
| hostable unified configuration networking. I migrated all the
| gateway/routing/simple service stuff to OPNsense, but then
| was stuck.
|
| TP-Link stepped in and have been working hard on Omada being
| a direct competitor. It's clearly inspired liberally from
| UniFi but that's A-OK by me, it's healthy for both to be
| going head to head. In my experience it had somewhat fewer
| features, particularly initially, and they definitely don't
| cover the full breadth of cool and useful niches that
| Ubiquiti does either. But what there is has worked well and
| been more reliable for me, particularly in a mixed
| environment. For example Omada worked perfected day 1 with
| automatic L3 controller discovery using a simple DHCP Option
| 138 set on my OPNsense unit pointing right at my controller
| FQDN. It was easy and built-in to supply a proper certificate
| for the Web GUI. I never got either of those to work with the
| UniFi controller. The switching has been rock solid reliable
| and the WiFi more performant, better coverage, and features
| like PPSK were added way before Ubiquiti did and have a much
| better interface.
|
| However, Ubiquiti does seem to perhaps be turning things
| around a bit. Their router hardware is no longer garbage,
| even if it is of course far less then you can do yourself.
| From what I can see in simple ongoing tests they do a better
| job on the software side for router features now as well, so
| if you're all-in on both systems for the total single-pane
| experience UniFi might once again be better. Their
| announcement of the "UniFi OS Server" 3 months ago (in Early
| Access) and publicly last month was both a surprise and
| heartening. Rarely does one see companies that start down the
| path of lock-in reverse course at all. If they make it
| possible to run all their various controller applications on
| your own hardware I'd definitely start to add more back into
| my mix.
|
| So if you've got decently modern Omada hardware (and you
| probably do because not like it's been around that long, in
| terms of networks anyway) I'd be in no massive rush to switch
| to UniFi unless you see some key specific things you'd like.
| If you think you ever might want to roll your own other infra
| same thing even harder. But if you're thinking about a bunch
| of upgrades anyway then worth keeping an eye on and looking
| carefully at the various feature mixes each have.
|
| And that's a really statement that makes me super happy to
| say, because I think each is now driving the other, which is
| really healthy for this ecosystem!
| baq wrote:
| Not omoda, but TP-Link - recently built a deco setup - 3x
| be65, 2x be25, one WiFi mesh node, the rest is wired 2.5gbe
| backhaul and performance is excellent, though I'm not a fan
| of only being able to configure stuff from the app, and there
| isn't that much to configure anyway. It just works, but if it
| wouldn't, I'd probably have to return the whole set.
| c-hendricks wrote:
| Can someone explain what "just works" when compared to other
| networking gear? IE I use ASUS and their mesh, and it all "just
| works". Have a mix of routers over 10 years and they all mesh
| together.
| samhh wrote:
| For a start I wouldn't trust brands that by default market
| mesh over wired backhaul.
| c-hendricks wrote:
| Because ... ? Reminder my comment was looking for
| explanations. Is your issue that mesh + Ethernet backhaul
| is actually WAP + roaming and not mesh?
| timeinput wrote:
| I started with TPLink gear in a mesh mode, and it kinda sorta
| maybe worked? I had an access point on the ground floor, a
| range extender + option to connect RJ45 (for devices with out
| WiFi), on the middle floor, and an additional meshed AP /
| range extender on the top floor. The top floor meshed thing
| basically didn't work, the RJ45 thing got me like 50 Mbps
| while wireless was getting me 200 Mbps. It 'just worked', but
| it didn't work well.
|
| In that same house switching over to Ubiquiti just worked,
| and worked well. I had the same setup (mesh nodes on every
| floor), but performance was substantially better (2-4x).
|
| I've moved house, and now have wired APs on every floor, and
| get phenomenal performance. The management UI to see what is
| where / how its connected, and when something doesn't work is
| very good. It also enables things that were hard / difficult
| with other non-'prosumer' gear. Like I can have multiple WAN
| ports, and plug in a cellular modem, so that when my internet
| doesn't just work (which happens way too often) it auto-fails
| over to the cellular modem, and continues just working.
|
| The reason I went with Ubiquiti in the first place was their
| Unifi Protect line of cameras, and again those 'just work'
| from the wireless small ones to domes / etc plugged into
| wired connections they all just seamlessly connect to my
| dream machine, and provides a great UI, and the data is on
| prem which I want.
|
| The only thing Ubiquiti doesn't do the way I want is DHCP +
| DNS, so I have a seperate raspberry pi doing that.
|
| After years of fussing around with either linux / pfsense /
| ... routing + firewall solutions, and different AP / meshing
| configurations the ubiquiti stuff is very hands off.
| c-hendricks wrote:
| Ah, so based on your last paragraph I guess you're in
| "prosumer" territory? My router has dual WAN, SFP, can do
| cellular over USB, tells DHCP clients to use the pihole for
| DNS, and I don't have speed issues in or around the house
| with the mesh nodes, but maybe it falls short if I was
| looking to do more advanced routing/firewalls.
| timeinput wrote:
| Definitely in prosumer territory, and it's totally
| achievable with equipment that isn't Ubiquiti (they're
| not magic, the mediums RF + ethernet + fiber are all the
| same), but the amount of fiddling I found to get things
| to 'work right' with ubiquiti was plug it all in, set up
| the WiFi password, and update the DNS / DHCP server to my
| pihole, and then I didn't have to do much else, and there
| was a really nice UI with nice metrics, and a nice UI for
| cameras all built in, and a few other niceties like some
| VPN options. There's also sufficient logging that when
| something doesn't work I can maybe figure out why.
|
| I don't really do more 'advanced' routing (other than
| maybe the unifi protect aka camera stuff it sounds like
| we're describing similar configurations), it's just that
| when I tried to achieve the configuration you're
| describing with Asus it was impossible, with TPLink it
| took a lot of fiddling / configuration and never 'worked
| right' (right meaning as well as I thought it should,
| though I've not tried TPLink in a primarily wired
| configuration) where as the ubiquiti stuff was plug and
| play and just 'worked right' (close to the speeds and
| reliability I expected both in a mesh mode and in wired).
|
| The whole camera thing -- which is what really got me to
| pay the ubiquiti tax -- is another story entirely, I'm
| sure there are lots of other good options for self hosted
| IP camera solutions, but I couldn't find any ones I
| wanted to use, and again with ubiquiti it was super plug
| and play, and once I'd bought the UDM to do camera stuff
| and saw how well that worked I wanted to try the ubiquiti
| networking stuff, and it worked better with less
| configuration that the other alternatives I'd tried.
|
| With infinite time and finite budget ubiquiti is not the
| right choice for home networks, with a sizable budget for
| home networking equipment minimal time investment and a
| preference for performance ubiquiti has worked out better
| for me than alternatives out of the box, and better for
| me after spending time tweaking and trying to optimize
| TPlink (meaning ubiquiti out of the box was better after
| trying to optimize TPlink).
|
| If "not ubiquiti" works for you out of the box, or in the
| configuration you're already in then you're all set, and
| you're definitely not missing out on anything. If things
| aren't working out of the box and you're tired of
| fiddling with it, or your other goals aren't possible,
| and they are with ubiquiti maybe it's worth the
| investigation.
|
| I also _hate_ how much I sound like an ad for ubiquiti.
| I'm really not, but I think I've spent more time writing
| these two comments than I've spent having to fuss around
| with my network equipment in years.
| sedatk wrote:
| Adding a new Unifi device to the network is just a matter of
| powering it up, responding to "adopt this new device?" prompt
| on your phone, and that's it. It's literally Plug'n'Play in
| 2025. Even if other brands let you do that with similar
| number of steps, the UX is so behind that it's impossible for
| you to discover the steps that easily. Ubiquiti uses UX quite
| intelligently to make complicated things feel simple. My
| experience hasn't been close to Ubiquiti's with any other
| brand I've tried.
| mongol wrote:
| Tangentially related: is Mikrotik as bad for wireless as some
| say? I want to like them, even though their equipment seems
| complex, I root for a company from the Baltics that have carved
| out a respectable niche. But they appear to struggle with
| wireless?
| nubinetwork wrote:
| I haven't tried their CAP or HAP lines, but I'm happy with my
| RB4011. /shrug
| cyberax wrote:
| I've been using Mikrotik in various capacities since 2008, I
| even made IoT devices using RB450 boards before the word
| "IoT" was coined. I also love supporting a small company that
| is successfully competing with the giants.
|
| Their long-distance wireless and outdoor wireless are great,
| but their regular WiFI access points and software are at most
| adequate. They are not keeping up with the state of the art.
| simoncion wrote:
| > They are not keeping up with the state of the art.
|
| Does that mean that the performance is middling (making
| them -IME- equal to UBNT's APs), that they never have APs
| that use the very latest and greatest WiFi version, or
| both?
| encom wrote:
| I got some decommissioned Ubiquiti gear (a switch, some ap's)
| from work, but it requires UniFi to do anything. I looked into
| that briefly and it appears to be some eldritch horror of an
| application. Anything I can't use from a terminal is worthless,
| so all of it is going in the trash where it belongs.
| simoncion wrote:
| Depending on the model of AP, you might be able to run
| OpenWRT on it without too much hassle.
| joelccr wrote:
| I love this. However, I'm very interested to see the maths on
| "offering up to 1000% savings compared to industry standards"
| BonoboIO wrote:
| The more you buy the more you save
| mystifyingpoi wrote:
| infinite money glitch
| wrs wrote:
| It's simple, they pay you 9X the standard industry price for
| each one you take...?
| OliverGuy wrote:
| Cisco etc have truly insane pricing on optics, like $1000 for
| something generic that cost $20-50 from fs.com etc. The only
| difference is how it presents itself to the switch (ie, says
| its a Cisco optic), not actual difference in performance.
|
| Often Cisco/etc will refuse support cases if you aren't using
| their optics, if the switches/routers even work with them in
| the first case, which isn't a given as often they'll refuse to
| work with non branded optics.
|
| Really just a money grab by the big network vendors.
|
| This box allows you to flash the firmware on the optic to say
| its from whatever brand you want (Cisco, Dell, Aruba, Juniper
| etc) so that you can get it to work in that companies
| switch/router.
|
| For most SMEs, the brand of optics makes no difference. Maybe
| keep a few legit branded ones around for debugging and when you
| need to raise a support case. But otherwise, the generic ones
| flashed to look like branded ones work just fine.
| cturner wrote:
| "The only difference is how it presents itself to the switch
| (ie, says its a Cisco optic), not actual difference in
| performance."
|
| That's not the only difference. I have had situations where I
| ran equivalent optics side-by-side, and then touched one and
| it was hot, and touched the other and it was not hot. They do
| contain different components. In the case of that test - the
| atgbics SFP was cool, and the other clone unit was hot. My
| dealer was able to get me in contact with someone technical
| at atgbics (the cool-running unit) who explained the
| difference, "The DSP might be say 13nm where more modern more
| expensive ones are 5nm."
|
| But you definitely do not need to pay for "genuine" optics to
| get high-reliability optics. You just need to shop around the
| clones - atgbics is a clone.
| Sesse__ wrote:
| > Often Cisco/etc will refuse support cases if you aren't
| using their optics, if the switches/routers even work with
| them in the first case, which isn't a given as often they'll
| refuse to work with non branded optics.
|
| As others here have pointed out, Cisco reserves the right to
| do this but doesn't do it in practice. They don't even have a
| realistic chance to _detect_ a Cisco-programmed FS SFP, since
| it simply identifies the same as a genuine Cisco module.
|
| 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. But if your case is about basically anything else
| on the switch, they won't care.
| bnjms wrote:
| > 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 issue
| too.
|
| FS is so big they're probably fine. Another option is to
| get one supported sfp, find if it's encoded to an oem part,
| then buy and install the oem part directly. Easy to twist
| the arm of your var to do this.
| Sesse__ wrote:
| > 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. :-)
| bananapub wrote:
| some context that's perhaps not obvious to non-networking people:
| essentially all networking hardware above 1G doesn't have rj45 or
| fibre ports in it, it has holes that you put modules in, "SFP+"
| modules for 10G, "SFP28" for 28gig networking, etc.
|
| most manufacturers of devices - the things with the holes, NICs,
| switches, routers - make their devices only officially work with
| modules that _claim_ to be manufactured by that same
| manufacturer. so, you can either buy modules from that
| manufacturer, or buy modules from some other company (e.g.
| fs.com, 10gtek) who programs the modules to claim that they are
| from that manufacturer. "officially" can mean anything from "we
| won't help you if you open a support case" to "the device will
| make a whiney log message on boot if it's not one of our modules"
| to "it simply doesn't work unless you hack an EEPROM on the
| device".
|
| this is somewhat annoying, since it means you need to buy
| specific modules for specific devices, you can't just keep a pile
| of SFP+ 10G-LR modules around, you need some "Intel SFP+ 10G-LR"
| and some "Cisco SFP+ 10G-LR", etc.
|
| so, these third party manufacturers of the modules, like fs.com
| and 10gtek, will also sell you _programmers_ for the modules,
| which lets you change what manufacturer the module claims made
| it. these programmers have been, historically and hilariously,
| tied to the actual manufacturer of the modules! so you can buy
| some 10G-LR SFP+ modules from fs.com and a fs.com programmer to
| set make some "Intel" and some "Cisco", but if you buy some
| 10gtek 10G-LR modules, you would need to buy a 10gtek programmer.
|
| ~so, this device that Ubiquiti has made is the meta-programmer -
| it can apparently program any module, from any actual
| manufacturer, to claim to be made by any manufacturer.~
|
| edit: the post seems deliberately confusing - what they are
| actually selling is a device that can re-program Ubiquiti SFP+
| modules by copying the manufacturer code from another SFP+ module
| that you insert into the programmer. so it's the same as what
| fs.com and all the other sell, but Ubiquiti's is ~1/10th the
| price (e.g. https://www.fs.com/uk/c/fs-box-3389).
| superice wrote:
| Minor pedantic correction: 2.5gbit, 5gbit and 10gbit RJ45 is
| getting more affordable and more common, and for short runs
| should run over CAT 6 and CAT 6a fine, and plenty of reports it
| does ok on short runs even on CAT 5e. With devices like the USW
| Flex Mini 2.5 at ~50-60 EUR / USD, you can affordably outfit
| your home for higher than gigabit speeds without rewiring
| everything with new CAT cable or fiber.
|
| Over here in NL we now get more and more access to >1gbps
| speeds, the office of my small business for instance has a
| 4gbps connection, and the ISP offers up to 8gbps on a standard
| consumer / small business package. We're in the process of
| upgrading our gear to take advantage of that. With WiFi 7 we've
| seen some real world throughput speeds of 1800-2000mbps going
| through a Ubiquiti U7 Pro straight to the ISP supplied router.
|
| I wasn't really keeping up with networking gear, so I was
| pleasantly surprised when I looked into this stuff recently and
| figured out the gear has just magically gotten better and
| running 2.5gbit everywhere is surprisingly easy.
| tuetuopay wrote:
| > 2.5gbit, 5gbit and 10gbit RJ45 is getting more affordable
| and more common
|
| Still, compared to the SFP+ gear it's ridiculously
| overpriced. NICs are <$20 on ebay and an 8x10G port managed
| switch is $120 on aliexpress.
|
| > Over here in NL we now get more and more access to >1gbps
| speeds
|
| Same in France, yet the main "geek" ISP (free) has an 8Gbps
| symmetric ISP router with a 10G SFP+ cage for full bandwidth
| to the LAN. RJ45 ports are 2.5G.
|
| And it's hard to fault them, as customers that are likely to
| even hardwire stuff to the router and moreso at 10Gbps are
| usually enthusiasts that do prefer SFP+ due to the abundance
| of hardware on the used market. Oh, and their team designing
| the router are a bunch of nerds that most likely all have a
| 10Gbps network.
| LtdJorge wrote:
| There's an ISP in Switzerland offering 25Gbps, they provide
| a Mikrotik. They're called init7.
| tuetuopay wrote:
| Yup, that's pretty nice. I sold a couple of XXV710s to a
| friend that moved over there.
| ericd wrote:
| Something nonobvious to consider, 10G copper/RJ45 SFP modules
| run _hot_ , to the point where our Mikrotik switch's manual
| mentioned that we could use them, but they strongly
| recommended only populating every other port, if we did. Heat
| wasn't a problem at all with the fiber ones.
| tripdout wrote:
| The FS-Box lets you pick from a list of manufacturers and
| serial numbers. Does this only do cloning from another
| physically inserted SFP?
| LostSoulUniFi wrote:
| This will make the life soo easy for many
| jeffcox wrote:
| For those outside the IT/networking realms, SFP use uniform
| connectors for both the networking device and the fiber cable,
| but the major vendors (Cisco and friends) have used firmware
| flags and settings to provide vendor lock-in for at least the
| last 15 years.
|
| It used to be that in the event of a major outage or hardware
| failure you would need to issue additional debug commands to the
| effect of "I know this isn't your approved SFP but please just
| try it," if you were trying to replace a first party SFP with a
| third party one. TAC would more or less laugh at you and hang up
| if you sought support.
|
| I'm not sure if this product will _actually_ change any of that,
| but here's hoping.
| runjake wrote:
| _> TAC would more or less laugh at you and hang up if you
| sought support._
|
| This is common belief and even a dire warning when filing TAC
| tickets. However, unless the third-party SFP is the prime
| suspect, I have never experienced a TAC from any major
| networking vendor[1] refuse support, let alone "laugh and hang
| up," even metaphorically.
|
| It's good SOP to keep at least a couple SFPs for each
| networking manufacturer on the shelf, but third-party SFPs are
| normally in the ballpark of 10% of the cost of OEM _and_ tend
| to be manufactured better[2].
|
| 1. Mostly Cisco, Juniper, HPE, Fortinet
|
| 2. I've had a far greater failure rate on OEM SFPs than SFPs
| from third-parties like Fs.com and USCritical. That and they
| feel much less flimsy than OEM.
| cturner wrote:
| Before I comment, a disclaimer about my small scale. I am
| running probably three hundred SFP+s running and less than
| five years of experience with optics. I don't have stock
| tracking for the individual manufacturers, and the failure
| rate comments here are based on gut-feel only. (there will be
| other people here used to far larger scales)
|
| I bucket it into there being three options: genuine, clone,
| and good-clone.
|
| We had a bad run with fs.com QSFP+s. Their SFP+s have been
| better to me, but reckon I have had a couple fail.
|
| Atgbics SFP+s have been a reliable clone supplier for us. I
| don't think I have had any of those fail, and they have been
| my main vendor for a while now. You can order them programmed
| with personalities for Cisco, etc.
|
| Part of the edge of fs.com is that it is so easy to place an
| order and get fast delivery. My main site is in another
| country to where I live, and I do a few trips a year. Several
| times they have made low-notice projects possible.
| simoncion wrote:
| > Atgbics SFP+s have been a reliable clone supplier for us.
|
| With the caveat that I'm a USian and my scale is even lower
| than yours (10 10gbit SFP+ modules in my apartment
| combination home, office, and lab, running trouble-free for
| the past three years) I've found 10Gtek to be a reliable
| supplier. You can order 10gbit SFP+ modules straight from
| them for 14USD per per module. Though, shipping costs
| straight from them is currently pretty terrible: $35 if
| you're spending less than $800.
|
| Stores like Newegg will often meet or beat that per-module
| price and offer free shipping if you buy a bundle of four
| or more... but modules with the personality you want may
| not be in stock.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| Don't think I ever had a case there TAC said anything about
| my sfps. Most of the time if it's the SFP you replace it,
| code it correctly with a device like the one linked, or it's
| the wrong kind of SFP anyway.
| tw04 wrote:
| >I'm not sure if this product will _actually_ change any of
| that, but here's hoping.
|
| SFP programmers have been around forever and work great. This
| will solve the issue. The only really unique thing here is the
| form factor and price. I think the last time I looked at a
| programmer 8 years ago I seem to recall it was about 10x this
| price. I'm guessing cheaper ones have popped up out of China
| since then.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| 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?
| tuetuopay wrote:
| 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 line afaik.
|
| A good rule of thumb is whether the equipment tries to
| vendor-lock you in.
|
| Another example that comes to mind is at least one generation
| of Intel NICs (don't remember if it's the 5xx or the 7xx),
| where even the open-source mainline (!) driver will reject
| the optic without a driver argument passed to it when
| modprobe'ing it.
| bri3d wrote:
| It's more common the more expensive the SFP host equipment,
| yes. This "compatibility" stuff is generally euphemism for
| "ridiculously primitive DRM" - lots of higher end network
| equipment checks the SFP Vendor ID and Serial Number and will
| reject it if it doesn't match an allow-list of "qualified"
| hardware. Programmers like these let you clone the VID/Serial
| from a "qualified" SFP onto a random SFP.
| booi wrote:
| I'm surprised you've never run into this. Even the "cheap"
| cisco/juniper switches will warn you when you plug in a
| generic or different branded one.
| simoncion wrote:
| Have you never worked with Intel NICs?
|
| The two X520s that I have will refuse to work with non-Intel
| transceivers unless either you're running Linux and have set
| the 'allow_unsupported_sfp' option, or have edited the card's
| EEPROM to unset the "shut down unless the transceiver is a
| Genuine Intel part" bit. It's my understanding that very many
| Intel NICs are like this.
|
| I remember [0] the Juniper switches that I used to have
| (before I switched to Mikrotik) refusing to work with
| anything other than Official Juniper transceivers.
|
| [0] ...and may MISremember...
| erinnh wrote:
| I like the pricing of this and especially the health check
| part. But the programming an SFP module part has been a thing
| forever. In Europe at least. Flexoptics for example have their
| own boxes to program optics.
| lflux wrote:
| Longer than that - in 2005 I was at a network hardware startup
| and we had vendor-locked (ahem, _qualified_) SFPs back then.
| Probably started back in 2001 when they were introduced.
| dheera wrote:
| Is there anything here from Ubiquiti that can allow me to plug
| an AT&T Fiber directly into my Unifi switch and get rid of the
| BGW620 crap? One would think AT&T Fiber is so common in
| Ubiquiti's target market that they should make an official SFP
| module for this already.
|
| I know there are these XPS-GROUPON with "8311 firmware" SFP
| modules or something to bypass it but they cost $130+ and just
| wondering if there's something for <$50 before I pull the
| trigger.
|
| Also
|
| > 1000% lower pricing
|
| What the hell does that mean? If some other vendor sells it for
| $1000, you sell it for -$9000?
| oakwhiz wrote:
| If it's a PON then it's not Ethernet media. You would then be
| looking for an ONT SFP but those are far from ordinary SFPs.
| They are not just dumb devices, there is a lot going on
| inside them since they crammed a whole ONT into the SFP, and
| it communicates SFI back to the host equipment as if it would
| have been Ethernet.
|
| https://hack-gpon.org/ont-wo-mac/
|
| You would need the ISP to "adopt" your ONT into their network
| similar to what is observed with cable modems.
| zdw wrote:
| Way more affordable than other solutions, like the $370 FS BOX
| from fs.com:
|
| https://www.fs.com/products/96657.html
|
| Which, while it works, is the poster child for how NOT to develop
| desktop software as it's a really shitty .NET GUI app they
| shoehorned onto non-Windows platforms.
| cillian64 wrote:
| Isn't this exactly the same as flexoptix and FS have been doing
| for years?
| wmf wrote:
| Ubiquiti doesn't invent anything; they make it cheap with a
| better UI.
| phoronixrly wrote:
| Better UI is stretching it a bit... Maybe for the
| amateur/enthusiast (homelab) market...
|
| I certainly don't need or want their rack augmented
| reality... 'feature'? fad? And their clunky web UI is both
| limiting and slowing me down. Thanks, I'm perfectly fine with
| a console and simple LEDs.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| That's their exact niche.
| einsteinx2 wrote:
| That and SMB's. I've seen a lot of Ubiquity gear in small
| hotels, random small businesses, etc. Especially hotels,
| they seem to be super common (not big chains like Hilton
| or whatever but smaller boutique hotels).
| aaronax wrote:
| The UI for the fs.com programmer is merely "not bad". This
| could easily be great in comparison.
| Sesse__ wrote:
| > I certainly don't need or want their rack augmented
| reality... 'feature'? fad?
|
| I find it mind-boggling that you can hardly buy _RAM_
| anymore without programmable RGB LEDs, but that managed
| switches do not come with a per-port RGB LED to let me mark
| VLANs or cables that need replacements or whatever. Come
| on! A nice little square all around the port, please.
| Instead, we get the QR code plus an app that needs to talk
| with the cloud.
| wmf wrote:
| Some of their switches have Etherlighting(tm).
| Sesse__ wrote:
| Yes, if you have special Ubnt-brand cables. And still, I
| want this to be standard everywhere, not a niche thing
| from one manufacturer :-) (I know Facebook has some on
| their 100G switches, too.)
| simoncion wrote:
| I'm _pretty sure_ that the only thing special about the
| cables is the boot that transmits the light from the port
| 's LED array fairly well.
| efitz wrote:
| Ubiquiti is awesome, but their IPv6 support leaves something to
| be desired.
|
| I have two ISPs, one with IPv6 (Starlink) and one without
| (Frontier).
|
| I want to use Frontier for all IPv4, with IPv4 failover to
| Starlink, and I want to use Starlink only for IPv6.
|
| UniFi networking won't let you configure this, and I'm not going
| to SSH in to my UDM to manually set routes, that will be lost at
| next boot.
| ectospheno wrote:
| This is why my router isn't ubiquiti. I like the switches and
| access points but my router will stay an OpenBSD box.
| beala wrote:
| I've only been using it for a couple months, but OPNsense
| (FreeBSD based) is such a solid piece of software. I
| installed it on a cheap Beelink mini PC with dual 2.5 gb NICs
| and an N150 processor (model EQ14), and it's been reliable
| and a pleasure to use as my router. I have a TP-Link Omada
| setup which I've been pleased with, but I feel no need to
| purchase one of their gateways.
| elevation wrote:
| What do you use for OpenBSD hardware? Is it power hungry? Is
| it performant?
|
| I had a great stint with OpenBSD on an older Pentium 4 Dell
| tower a few years back. For basic firewall rules, I had line-
| rate performance on my NICs. But for a home network I'd love
| to have something more energy efficient.
| ectospheno wrote:
| My current router at home is a dell vostro 3020 with a quad
| port intel nic. I usually get dell for the firmware updates
| they provide well after warranty.
| aaronax wrote:
| Search Amazon for "pfsense mini pc". (smile as you think
| about how this triggers that one pfsense guy!) Intel N100
| or N150 processor, passive cooling, typically 5 1000GBASE-T
| or better ports, RAM and SSD included. Should be able to
| get one for ~$200.
| kube-system wrote:
| There are good options there, but those white label mini
| PCs can be hardware quality roulette.
|
| As much as I like opnsense, I choose Ubiquiti still when
| I need something cheap that I need to rely on.
| beala wrote:
| I posted this in a sibling comment, but I can confirm
| Beelink's EQ14 [1] works well with OPNsense (FreeBSD based
| instead of OpenBSD). The dual NIC model uses the Intel
| KTI226-V chipset which has rock solid FreeBSD drivers.
|
| [1] https://www.bee-link.com/products/beelink-
| eq14-n150?variant=...
| xyst wrote:
| Should put in feature request, I would happily upvote/support
| something like this on their community forum.
| strbean wrote:
| Not ideal, but can you add an init.d to do that?
| tuetuopay wrote:
| I've recently had a laugh on a UDM trying to setup IPv6
| routing. Somehow, it did not install the default route in the
| FIB, but the OS was aware of it, so the router was reachable
| from the outside but did not route packets. I tried adding a
| route to `::0/0` and it spat at me that a multicast destination
| was not valid as a route destination. I gave it a route to
| `::0/1` and it's happily chugging along now. /shrug
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| I use Unifi for everything _except_ my router, for which I use
| a Supermicro server running OPNsense. The Unifi gateways are
| just too limited.
| gonesilent wrote:
| Same setup for me. Unifi just has to many limits to advanced
| networking. Trying to force tunnels to just do basic routing.
| whalesalad wrote:
| The same excitement I used to feel in the late '00s/early '10s
| for Apple is what I now feel for Unifi. I must have it all. They
| are capitalizing on autism better than anyone else in the history
| of the world, except for maybe Lego.
| xyst wrote:
| Anybody go through the trouble of outfitting their entire
| home/condo with fiber? Probably overkill for residential but I am
| also thinking it might need to be shrouded in EMT conduit
| elevation wrote:
| I ran conduit for fiber to a couple rooms.
|
| Because pre-terminated cable assemblies [0] can be 10% of the
| cost of a more modular link, I used conduit large enough to
| pass QSFP28 with ease. May not be possible in every home but
| I'm happy with the result.
|
| [0]: https://www.ebay.com/itm/116804914246
| bobmcnamara wrote:
| I did a 10 gig backbone between my three switches, and it's
| awesome. I didn't bother placing conduit - just tacked up
| preterminated lengths using coax clips and ordered a spare in
| case one of them ever goes down. I also have Wi-Fi mesh routers
| on each switch, which provides low speed redundancy until I
| have time to replace a fiber. I considered doing conduit -
| mostly I didn't because I don't expect to be in this house for
| too many more years. I don't know that I would run fiber to
| many more places - I did place a jumper through the wall for my
| wife's desktop if we wanted that in the future. But most
| consumer devices still seem to have rj45s, so I wouldn't want
| to put down a media converter for each. If this were a new
| build I might consider placing fiber and only lighting it as
| needed.
|
| This is the SFP DAS and fiber links in the current place:
|
| workstation - switchUpStairs - switchMainFloor - switchBasement
| - nas
|
| Edge devices are a mix between 100meg, 1gig, 2.5gig, so
| anything wired is limited mostly by its own nic or the ISP.
| toast0 wrote:
| Sounds like a lot of work (unless you've got easy access... my
| last house had a basement with access to wall cavities, you
| could just shove cables up and reach in from a wall plate to
| grab it or shove down from the room).
|
| I've got some 10g at my current house, but it's over cat5e
| cause that was already in the walls. Also adding a few 2.5g
| with a 4x2.5g + 2xsfp+ 10g switch that goes into a 10g capable
| switch.
| madaxe_again wrote:
| Yeah, but it's a km from one end to the other, and a WiFi relay
| wasn't cutting it, and Ethernet couldn't stretch the distance -
| so fibre it was.
|
| Utter pain in the ass, broke one fibre pulling it through
| conduit with way too much force (like, 2000+N), another got
| eaten by a fox before I'd put it in a conduit, and terminating
| fibre is a royal pain if you have to do it.
|
| But yeah, totally worth it.
| ericd wrote:
| I did a few rooms with fiber and copper for 10G, you don't need
| EMT, I found the blue flexible smurf tube perfect for this.
| simoncion wrote:
| I've run fiber in my apartment, but it's running along
| baseboards in no-traffic areas and draped high up along wall
| and window moldings in nonzero-traffic ones.
|
| > I am also thinking it might need to be shrouded in EMT
| conduit
|
| Why would you need to run your fiber in metal pipe? EMI isn't a
| problem with fiber.
| FuriouslyAdrift wrote:
| FiberStore (fs.com) have offered vendor neutral and
| reprogrammable SFPs and other modules for years (they're also
| dramatically less expensive).
| Someone1234 wrote:
| They're dramatically less expensive than original OEM, but UB
| clearly is targeting them with this release/aggressive pricing.
|
| It remains to be seen if UB's pricing (particularly $50 on the
| "Wizard") is just temp to get their foot in the door. I suspect
| it is; and we'll see the price increase later.
| xienze wrote:
| > I suspect it is; and we'll see the price increase later.
|
| I used to use Ubiquiti gear a number of years ago, but left
| when they started moving into an Apple-esque "prosumer"
| direction with corresponding price increases. That, and the
| constant bugs.
| Someone1234 wrote:
| Just to add context:
|
| Ubiquiti's G3 Instant entry level camera was launched at
| $30 in 2021; which is $55 adjusted for inflation, but
| they're _actually_ selling it for $80. The G4 Instant is
| $99 and G6 Instant is $180(!). Keep in mind this is their
| cheapest, entry level, offering in the camera space.
|
| Whereas if you contrast these prices with a Reolink E1 Pro
| which is $55 (with free shipping) and superior to the G4
| Instant in every metric (lens quality, pixel count, PTZ,
| ONVIF support, et al). This essentially makes this a space
| that Ubiquiti is no longer interested in competing in.
| xienze wrote:
| One of the more egregious examples in my opinion is their
| rack mounted cable modem. I would love to get it but --
| $279? No thanks.
| tguvot wrote:
| on thingverse and some other sites there are adapters for
| different cable modems to make them rack mounted
| zamadatix wrote:
| > (they're also dramatically less expensive)
|
| It depends, but for typical networking I'd say Ubiquti is
| actually offering better pricing here (outside of 10G LR) - and
| I'm saying that as someone who has sold 10s of thousands of FS
| modules to customers. | FS |
| Ubiquiti -----------+------+----------- Programmer
| | $369 | $49 10G SR | $25 | $12 ($20) 10G LR
| | $34 | $59 ($85) 25G SR | $49 | $29 ($49)
| 25G LR | $74 | $69 ($119) 100G SR4 | $99 | $39
| ($69)
|
| Note: Prices in () are the costs outside of the limited time
| mark-down period.
|
| Side note for the HN crowd: For ridiculous homelab 100G
| shenanigans look for Intel 100G-CWDM4 on sites like Ebay. They
| go for $4 and work with SM LC fiber from 0-2000 meter runs,
| making great DAC replacements (cheaper+thinner replaceable
| cabling). They run great, I've had 8 going for a year. Even if
| all 8 failed tomorrow and I bought 8 more that's still cheaper
| than a single 100G SR4 from FS. You can pair these with used
| 100G NICs for ~$100, making a 100G direct connection between 2
| machines ~$250 after shipping+tax.
| aaronax wrote:
| Fun fact: each one also consumes approximately $4 in
| electricity per year.
|
| Assuming 2.5W typical consumption, $0.18/kWh rate. More like
| $8/year if you are in a high rate area!
| FuriouslyAdrift wrote:
| For high speed home stuff, I usually pick up some old
| Mellanox infiniband cards and cables. They're usually dirt
| cheap and insanely quick. Difficult to work with if you do
| not know what your are doing.
| subscribed wrote:
| OMG, mlx fw upgrades.
|
| I'm so happy my current employer chose sfc :)
| FuriouslyAdrift wrote:
| Lol.. yeah. Was fun having a 32Gb (QDR) storage network
| at home for next to nothing for a while (except the huge
| electric bill).
| kllrnohj wrote:
| > Ubiquti is actually offering better pricing here (outside
| of 10G LR)
|
| Ubiquiti's 10GB LR of $59 is for a 2-pack, not per-module. So
| that still comes out cheaper than FS for the sale duration at
| least. Not by a lot, granted, but still cheaper.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| Nice prices from Ubiquiti. I think fs mostly competes against
| Cisco which have much higher prices. IIRC we hade like a 95%
| discount off Ciscos list price for optics.
| kotaKat wrote:
| And if you shove the wrong (i.e. non-FS) optic in an FS Box you
| accidentally softlock your account for a week at a time as a
| punishment :)
| gonesilent wrote:
| That app also sends ser# and other info to FS forcing you to
| help them build out the DB.
| muppetman wrote:
| As does Flexoptixs (much better quality than fs.com in my
| experience)
|
| https://www.flexoptix.net/en/fo-fb-5.html?option875=1
|
| If you're buying at scale you can get a Flexoptixs box for
| free, long as you promise to write a review. At least, you used
| to be able to.
| eiginn wrote:
| Now if only the fiberstore SFP programmer didn't require an app
| that is basically malware as far as I'm concerned.
| FuriouslyAdrift wrote:
| It is pretty bad...I use a crap laptop to run it (same thing
| I do for all my PLC software that is just horrible)
| dawnerd wrote:
| Looks cool but their text on that page is very clearly written by
| LLM and pretty exhausting to read.
| donatj wrote:
| Early this year I started redoing the backbone of my home network
| with 10 gb. Some of it's fiber, some of it's 10 gb copper
| Ethernet. It's been genuinely frustrating the weird
| incompatibilities between switches and SFP+ modules.
|
| All my switches are MikroTik. My SFP+ modules are MikroTik,
| Ubiquiti, and some 3rd party ones from before I knew better.
|
| I've had modules that will only run at gigabit in one switch but
| will give me the full 10 gb in another. I've had modules that
| refuse to work in one MikroTik switch but will happily work in a
| different MikroTik switch. I've just had a world of pain.
|
| I've got everything basically working after months of fiddling
| and I'm inclined to just not... touch... anything.
| jabart wrote:
| I've had great luck with 10gtek modules both with Mikrotik
| gear, with DACs, and one that is connected to an upstream
| juniper switch. I'm curious what modules were the most
| troublesom.
|
| * I will note that the 10gb sfp+ modules from 10gtek on a
| Mikrotik just don't work.
| donatj wrote:
| Funnily enough, this 10gtek worked on _one_ of my 3 switches,
| but I could only establish a gigabit connection. I returned
| it [1]
|
| These 10gtek fiber modules on the other hand have worked
| flawlessly so far. [2]
|
| This Mikrotik module would not establish a 10 gb link with my
| Thunderbolt dock no matter what I tried. Works fine with my
| servers though so I swapped it out.
|
| I've pretty much resigned myself to just buying the full
| brand Ubiqitui SFP+ adapters [4] for converting to copper.
|
| I recently purchased [5] to run to my living room, but I have
| not found the time/energy to do the run.
|
| 1. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01KFBFL16
|
| 2. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08BP4M8LV
|
| 3. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B078SNK1MY
|
| 4. https://store.ui.com/us/en/category/accessories-modules-
| fibe...
|
| 5. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CYC6P6KF
| tguvot wrote:
| did you try to disable autonegotiation and force speed ? i
| think i had to do it a couple of times with copper
| donatj wrote:
| Yep. I actually had to do that to get the Ubiqiti one to
| work. It just did not work when I tried that with the
| Mikrotik adapter.
| tguvot wrote:
| btw, if you are using 10gbe copper modules, take a look
| at their temperature. some of mine were getting to 92C i
| think. had to put a bunch of heatsinks on them
| LtdJorge wrote:
| I put a couple of Noctua NF-14 over the top ventilation
| holes in my rack, with the silicone mounting thingies and
| the NA-FC1 PWM controller. They are almost silent in
| winter. The switch with 10Gb copper is under the fans.
| tguvot wrote:
| i opened switch and put noctua inside to cool sfp cage
| that i added heatsink to, in addition to heatsinks on
| sfp+ module itself. it dropped temperature from 92c to
| 75c. year later i replaced it with fiber run.
| chopsuei3 wrote:
| Make sure you also pay attention to the distance rating
| of the SFP. I had a very similar experience with modules
| not working at the right speed sometimes. Turned out I
| was running 50 meters of cable over a 30 meter SFP. Got
| the correct one, and as low wattage rating as possible
| and it's been rock solid ever since.
| booi wrote:
| I tried converting everything to copper as well but the
| copper DACs use a lot of power and ended up not working out
| due to the greatly increased power usage (mostly because
| the networking "closet" wasn't really designed for it). So
| beware if you're moving it to copper
| LtdJorge wrote:
| I have a few SFP+ doing 10GbE over UTP from 10Gtek in a
| Mikrotik. They work perfectly, although hot (to be expected).
| simoncion wrote:
| > * I will note that the 10gb sfp+ modules from 10gtek on a
| Mikrotik just don't work.
|
| Weird. For the past three years, I've had 10Gtek 10gbit SFP+
| optical modules in all of my Mikrotik switches [0] and they
| Just Work.
|
| My switches are the CRS326-24G-2S+, and the SFPs were the
| "generic" versions. I wonder why yours were so troublesome.
|
| [0] ...and (after fixing their eeproms) my Intel x520 NICs...
| tracker1 wrote:
| Similar... I only bought a single 8-port 10gb ethernet switch
| though... I have a couple devices with 10g nics including my
| NAS, the rest are 2.5g. I'm hoping that sooner than later, 10g
| ethernet gear pricing comes down closer to where 2.5g is today.
| karotte wrote:
| Interesting, that's pretty much the same thing I developed 6
| years ago, though with a nicer display and QSFP slot:
| https://github.com/carrotIndustries/hubble/
| tripdout wrote:
| Does it only clone the EEPROM from one SFP module to another (so
| you need to physically posess both), or can you write arbitrary
| data?
|
| And does it only write to SFP modules from Ubiquiti (looking at
| you FS BOX)?
|
| Another tool you can use for this (without a nice UI) is the SFP
| Buddy: https://oopselectronics.com/product/SFPB
| qwertyuiop_ wrote:
| Just bought an SFP+ module that works with Cisco, Dell, Juniper
| but won't work with Unifi. Is this supposed to test all generic
| modules even the cheap Chinese brands ?
| gojomo wrote:
| WTF is 'SFP'?
| tuetuopay wrote:
| Small Form-factor Pluggable, a common optics format for 1 to
| 25Gbps networks. See the wikipedia page:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Form-factor_Pluggable
| raaxe wrote:
| The technical information for this thing seems to be light on the
| ground. What kind of diagnostic stats are provided? How is it
| figuring out true Rx/Tx power without a light meter?
|
| Also, reading "Just insert any brand's SFP or QSFP module, select
| Copy, and insert any UI module to write the profile." suggests
| that this only works to reprogram UI optics
| encom wrote:
| >updates via the UniFi mobile app
|
| Oh come on!
| sedatk wrote:
| Sold out already.
| aetherspawn wrote:
| UniFi SFP modules work fine in Dell and Synology servers, so
| contrary to most of the anecdotes in this thread I've always just
| bought the 20 packs and had no issues.
|
| Didn't need reprogramming.
|
| The quality is fine, oldest modules more than 5 years old and
| only 1 failure in 100.
| weinzierl wrote:
| "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?
| Maxious wrote:
| Yes, eg. This one runs a ssh server
| https://www.glbb.jp/en/hardware/gs3/
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-28 23:01 UTC)