From: Larry Letterman (lletterm@cisco.com)
Date: Thu Jun 19 2003 - 15:16:31 GMT-3
I sent the earlier thread on Tac's lack of effort to our internal tac
manager.
Maybe it will help fix some of the issues that some of you have
raised...its
Unfortunate that I have to hear from my list memebers about lousy
service from
Cisco...
Larry Letterman
Cisco Systems
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Pratt, Jeremy
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 11:05 AM
To: 'Henry Chou'; timothy.snow@eds.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Cisco TAC satisfaction rating going down....
That only works if your account team is around. My team just got laid
off and I didn't know about it until I tryed calling the rep and the SE.
I finally had to call corporate and scream at them before the regional
sales manager assigned me a new team.
I guess Cisco doesn't value a customer that dishes out 2 million a year.
As for TAC I am having the same issues.
I just opened a case on a CE560 cache engine. The CFS volume keeps
dismounting both drives and one drive crashed. The tac rep wanted to
walk me through rebuilding the drives again. I finally had to escalate
the case to a manager to get an RMA. The unit is only a month old and
even with smartnet it's still covered under warranty.
-----Original Message-----
From: Henry Chou [mailto:henchou@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 8:55 AM
To: timothy.snow@eds.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Cisco TAC satisfaction rating going down....
Tim,
You need to take this issue immediately to your Cisco Account team. You
are
doing Cisco a favor by raising issues such as this because you paid for
SmartNet and you're entitled to receive satisfactory services. Also,
your
account team will help you avoid bad experience such as this next time
you
open a TAC cases.
Henry
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_c
onfi
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jul 04 2003 - 11:11:01 GMT-3