From: Joseph Ezerski (jezerski@broadcom.com)
Date: Thu Jun 19 2003 - 17:23:06 GMT-3
I too have had my ups and downs with TAC. There are a few things I have
learned along the way.
#1. The first level TAC support, I have heard, is not even Cisco staffed.
They outsource it but all use cisco mail domains.
#2. I have found that waiting for the Australia TAC timezone usually pays
off (I am in PDT). The Aussies just seems to be sharper on most things, but
not always.
#3. If you don't like the support you are getting, escalate, escalate,
escalate!
#3a. If you don't like to escalate, re-queue or open a new case. I have
had great luck with this one!
#4. We are fortunate enough to have a GREAT SE. We involve him in all of
our planning and designs. It has paid off over the years and he knows our
network as if he were a full time employee. If you are fortunate enough to
have easy access to an SE, use him! SE-s also have ready access to the
product-dev teams and product managers and can get more up to date info if
needed.
#5. Even though they can be annoying, use the Bingo survey to voice your
concerns. I once submitted a very negative survey and even stated something
to the effect that I know no one at Cisco actually reads these things etc
etc. I was phoned about an hour later from someone at Cisco who wanted to
discuss my concerns. It all turned out very positive.
HTH
-Joe
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Snow, Tim
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 8:46 AM
To: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
Subject: Cisco TAC satisfaction rating going down....
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jul 04 2003 - 11:11:01 GMT-3