From: Georg Pauwen (pauwen@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Jun 19 2003 - 14:49:55 GMT-3
I opened two TAC cases within the last few months, in the first one the guy
also sent me a link to a web page (it was a question about CBAC) and then
sent me an email asking me to give him a good rating because he needed it
for his job. I couldn't believe he was asking for that; obviously I didn't
give him a rating at all. The second case, just a few weeks ago, was about
Quality of Service Policy Manager version 3.0. The guy sent me an answer and
then immediately asked me if he could close the case. I said I would rather
try out the solution first, but he insisted and closed the case, telling me
that I could always reopen it later. Come Monday, I tried to contact him
since his solution didn't work. It turns out he is off on a vacation. Two
more emails after his return rendered no reply, nothing at all.
I think the TAC has probably cut down on the number of people working there,
and they probably have so many cases that they don't have a lot of time to
spend on each case, which makes the service rather superficial and basicaly
worthless.
To tell you the truth guys and gals I think that Groupstudy is so much
better than TAC, I have never had a question posted to this group which has
not been anwered within 24 hours, with the exact right answer.
Regards,
Georg
>From: "Snow, Tim" <timothy.snow@eds.com>
>Reply-To: "Snow, Tim" <timothy.snow@eds.com>
>To: "'ccielab@groupstudy.com'" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Subject: Cisco TAC satisfaction rating going down....
>Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 11:46:10 -0400
>
>I opened a TAC case with the pim sparse-question that I had regarding
>whether the RP needs to be told it is the RP. I got about 6 emails from
>some of you and this is the response I got from the Cisco TAC. First off,
>I don't see how he didn't understand what I was asking and it appears all
>they want to do is send their customers a link to a webpage. Sheessh.
>Here's my initial question, his response and then my follow-up response.
>
>
>
>I've very surprised that you would just send me to a link on the website.
>Isn't it obvious from my debugs and question that I know how to configure
>multicast but was merely asking the question of "who was right?"
>
>I wasn't asking whether I needed an RP or not, what I was asking was
>whether
>the RP needed to be configured with it's own ip address which the "ip pim
>rp-address" command.
>
>I also made 2 specific references to books showing that one says basicallly
>1) the RP needs itself to be configured, and the other says 2) The RIP
>doesn't need to know and just assumes..
>
>BTW, the 6 other people people that responded to my email to a cisco study
>group had no problem understanding the question that I asked for the book
>references that I made...
>
>Tim
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: <HIDDEN>
>Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 3:08 AM
>To: timothy.snow@eds.com
>Cc: timothy.snow@eds.com
>Subject: Case EXXXXX - *ANS*Conguration and Overview of Multicast
>Sparse Mode and Rendez-vous Points
>
>
>
>Timothy,
> Im not quite sure what you are asking but I can try to assist you at
>the configuration of multicast. The cisco tac has not affiliation with
>Cisco
>Press and cant really speak to thier accuracy. The configuration guidelines
>here should be used when configuring Multicast.
>
>http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/hw/switches/ps646/products_confi
>guration_guide_chapter09186a008007f3c3.html
>
>The only time you do not need to specify a RP address is when you are using
>sparse-dense mode. When useing sparse mode a RP address will need to be
>configured. Thanks...
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Snow, Tim [mailto:timothy.snow@eds.com]
>Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 11:17 AM
>To: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
>Subject: PIM Sparse-Mode - Does RP have to know itself?
>
>
>
>
> I have a question regarding PIM sparse-mode RP and
>whether to tell the RP that
>it is the RP. There seems to be some discrepancy with multiple cisco
>press books. See below.
>
>Per Jeff Doyle Vol II (pg 544, 1st paragraph, line 9) " The reason for
>this statement on
>this router, of course, is so that the router knows that is is the RP."
>
>Contradicting that is Beau Williamson, Multicast (Pg 343, Note section)
>"When the router,
>whose address is in this field receives the (*,G) Join message, it sees
>its own address
>in this field and assumes that i must be the RP for the group. Therefor
>a router always
>assumes the duties of the RP for a group and time it receives a an
>incoming (*,G) join
>that contains the address of one of it's multicast-enabled interfaces in
>this field"
>
>
>
>*Feb 28 22:30:41: PIM: Received v2 Join/Prune on Serial0.95 from
>10.2.3.5, to us
>*Feb 28 22:30:41: PIM: Join-list: (*, 228.13.20.216) RP 10.224.1.1
>*Feb 28 22:30:41: PIM: (*, 228.13.20.216) Join from 10.2.3.5 for invalid
>RP 10.224.1.1
>
>r9(config)#access-list 9 deny 224.0.1.39
>r9(config)#access-list 9 deny 224.0.1.40
>r9(config)#access-list 9 permit any
>r9(config)#ip pim rp-address 10.224.1.1 9
>
>*Feb 28 22:32:40: PIM: Received v2 Join/Prune on Serial0.95 from
>10.2.3.5, to us
>*Feb 28 22:32:40: PIM: Join-list: (*, 228.13.20.216) RP 10.224.1.1
>*Feb 28 22:32:40: MRT: Create (*, 228.13.20.216), RPF Null, PC 0x353148E
>
>*Feb 28 22:32:40: PIM: Check RP 10.224.1.1 into the (*, 228.13.20.216)
>entry, RPT-bit
> set, WC-bit set, S-bit set
>*Feb 28 22:32:40: MRT: Add/Update Serial0.95/224.0.0.2 to the olist of
>(*, 228.13.20.
>216), Forward state
>*Feb 28 22:32:40: PIM: Add Serial0.95/10.2.3.5 to (*, 228.13.20.216),
>Forward state
>
>
>As you can see above, it only worked when I told the RP about the RP
>(that is, itself)
>I did try turning on "ip pim sparse" due to Williamson saying "of one of
>it's multicast
>enabled interfaces" but that didn't work. I also tried configuring a
>"ip pim accept-rp"
>permitting everything but that didn't work.
>
>Can anyone answer this for me?
>
>Thanks.
>
>TIm
>
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>You are subscribed to the GroupStudy.com CCIE R&S Discussion Group.
>
>Subscription information may be found at:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jul 04 2003 - 11:11:01 GMT-3