From: Larry Letterman (lletterm@cisco.com)
Date: Thu Jun 19 2003 - 20:21:52 GMT-3
The numbers game is now large everywhere in cisco..
High availability numbers
Cases that we close in the support group(it internal)
Stats for mgr's
Sadly to say, Cisco used to ignore the usual MBA bs and get the job done
the right way..
Now its just like the rest of corp america..show me numbers..
Larry Letterman
Cisco Systems
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Mike Williams
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 3:44 PM
To: 'Sam Munzani'; 'Georg Pauwen'; timothy.snow@eds.com;
ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Cisco TAC satisfaction rating going down....
Me too. We called TAC about a strange IPX issue, and it seemed I got
more him-haw and dodging than I did a real interest in trying to solve
my problem. I can't say how many people work at TAC or if their numbers
are down, but I get the feeling that somewhere in TAC management it's
turned into a numbers game (i.e. how many case have you closed, how long
were the cases open, etc) because I also have noticed the tendency for a
TAC engr to A) try to give you a speedy link to the website I hopes it
fixes your problem and they get a quick close time, B) not take time to
fully understand the issue before spouting advice on how to fix the
issue they don't quite understand yet, and C) try to close the case
ASAP. I had even spent a couple of hours making a visio diagram showing
our topology along with addressing, etc so I could send it to the TAC
engr, but when I told him that I wanted to send to him to give a good
idea of our setup, he was like "nah.... Just try <this> and get back to
me".... Stuff like that.........
Mike W.
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Sam Munzani
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 1:05 PM
To: Georg Pauwen; timothy.snow@eds.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Cisco TAC satisfaction rating going down....
It is unfortunate but I second that.
Sam
> 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_
>conf
i
> >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
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Search, le moteur de recherche qui pense comme vous !
> http://search.msn.fr/worldwide.asp
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _
> 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