BIG-IP to Cisco via 10Gb SFP+ Direct Attach Copper

F5's official stance on 3rd party hardware components:

https://support.f5.com/kb/en-us/solutions/public/8000/100/sol8153.html

Thanks for the replies. When I search for the 10G direct attach copper cables I find this link:-

https://support.f5.com/kb/en-us/products/big-ip_ltm/manuals/product/f5-plat-accessories/2.html

This makes no sense, a 10G DAC with 1000Base-T Copper Ethernet Transceiver Module and RJ45 connector?

F5-UPG-SFPC+-3M seems to be the product I'm looking for, although the Cisco will no doubt complain if I use that.

Inter-vendor DAC support is a shambles!

We use it also from NEXUS 7700 to F5 and works like a charm. We use passive ones, 5m in length.

Let me hop on this rather old toppic and add a question:

The product catalog entry of the F5 DAC-cable says: "for connecting the SFP+ ports on your F5 platform to the SFP+ modules on an upstream switch."

Since F5 has no own switches...which switch do they refer to? I mean, does F5 think they are the only company with "own brand only support" restriction?

Let's bring it down to numbers: I want to connect my LTM pair to my Nexus pair. So i can choose to spend $8000 on SFP+ (4 of each vendor) or $200 on 4 DAC cables to achieve the same goal.

Proportionality anyone?

Let me hop on this rather old toppic and add a question:

The product catalog entry of the F5 DAC-cable says: "for connecting the SFP+ ports on your F5 platform to the SFP+ modules on an upstream switch."

Since F5 has no own switches...which switch do they refer to? I mean, does F5 think they are the only company with "own brand only support" restriction?

Let's bring it down to numbers: I want to connect my LTM pair to my Nexus pair. So i can choose to spend $8000 on SFP+ (4 of each vendor) or $200 on 4 DAC cables to achieve the same goal.

Proportionality anyone?

I've been using Cisco DACs for years with the smaller F5s (2000,4000 series) however I've noticed that although they work with my i7800, I did get a notification when I initially powered up that it was an "unsupported optic".