<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic 2560 Transceiver Compatibility in Spark Firewall (SMB)</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Spark-Firewall-SMB/2560-Transceiver-Compatibility/m-p/265949#M13509</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Greetings!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We are in the process of testing a 2560 SMB utilizing the 10G SFP interfaces and we were told by our SC/account team that these 10G SR SFP optics would work -- Check Point &lt;STRONG&gt;CPAC-TR-10SR&lt;/STRONG&gt;.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;They do show light (kind of dull/ reduced light) when inserted and the interfaces are enabled, but they will not establish any type of link between the gateway and the switch. If we use the switch vendor optics (Brocade) - the link comes up on the gateway and all appears well.&amp;nbsp; Re-insert the CP optic = lose link. We have tested approx. a dozen of these CP transceivers and multiple fiber cables = all no go.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We referenced this SK:&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://support.checkpoint.com/results/sk/sk92755" target="_blank"&gt;https://support.checkpoint.com/results/sk/sk92755&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp;- and we can see that 2560's specifically denote "D" coding, which we asked about:&amp;nbsp;&lt;STRONG&gt;CPAC-TR-10SR-D.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/STRONG&gt;Could this have just been an oversight with our inquiry and they do not work or might there be any tips/ tricks people know of to get these to work?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Happy Holidays!&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2025 21:50:20 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>CP_SA</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2025-12-23T21:50:20Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>2560 Transceiver Compatibility</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Spark-Firewall-SMB/2560-Transceiver-Compatibility/m-p/265949#M13509</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Greetings!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We are in the process of testing a 2560 SMB utilizing the 10G SFP interfaces and we were told by our SC/account team that these 10G SR SFP optics would work -- Check Point &lt;STRONG&gt;CPAC-TR-10SR&lt;/STRONG&gt;.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;They do show light (kind of dull/ reduced light) when inserted and the interfaces are enabled, but they will not establish any type of link between the gateway and the switch. If we use the switch vendor optics (Brocade) - the link comes up on the gateway and all appears well.&amp;nbsp; Re-insert the CP optic = lose link. We have tested approx. a dozen of these CP transceivers and multiple fiber cables = all no go.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We referenced this SK:&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://support.checkpoint.com/results/sk/sk92755" target="_blank"&gt;https://support.checkpoint.com/results/sk/sk92755&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp;- and we can see that 2560's specifically denote "D" coding, which we asked about:&amp;nbsp;&lt;STRONG&gt;CPAC-TR-10SR-D.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/STRONG&gt;Could this have just been an oversight with our inquiry and they do not work or might there be any tips/ tricks people know of to get these to work?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Happy Holidays!&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2025 21:50:20 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Spark-Firewall-SMB/2560-Transceiver-Compatibility/m-p/265949#M13509</guid>
      <dc:creator>CP_SA</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-12-23T21:50:20Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: 2560 Transceiver Compatibility</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Spark-Firewall-SMB/2560-Transceiver-Compatibility/m-p/265952#M13510</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;The SK and appliance datasheet both state the -D variant is required.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;The other variant is from 2012 used with old appliances and hence is EOS/EOL to my knowledge.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Dec 2025 00:16:05 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Spark-Firewall-SMB/2560-Transceiver-Compatibility/m-p/265952#M13510</guid>
      <dc:creator>Chris_Atkinson</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-12-24T00:16:05Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: 2560 Transceiver Compatibility</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Spark-Firewall-SMB/2560-Transceiver-Compatibility/m-p/266000#M13511</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;You can confirm with TAC, but you got 100% logical answer from&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/3630"&gt;@Chris_Atkinson&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Dec 2025 22:34:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Spark-Firewall-SMB/2560-Transceiver-Compatibility/m-p/266000#M13511</guid>
      <dc:creator>the_rock</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-12-24T22:34:10Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

