From: omer@ansari.com
Date: Thu Jun 19 2003 - 23:54:34 GMT-3
Tim,
I second Taimoor's input, but must also flag a warning:
TAC is a Post Sales Break-Fix organization generally,
and is primarily funded by the contracts your company
has signed on (e.g. Smartnet etc)
However, It seems like in this case you opened a case
not for your company/customer's network support but to
get a CCIE related question answered.
While it is a shame you got a bad response, it is not
advisable to be opening cases using your company's
contract for getting CCIE related questions answered.
Remember: for each such case, you are costing a cisco
resource [this particalar case notwithstanding] who
could have at that time helping out an actual real
issue which is costing a company revenue because of
down time, or other network/systems related problem.
This is taken quite seriously within Cisco, and some
folks within the company actually consider this abuse
of TAC.
Just a friendly note...
cheers,
Omer
CCIE #10313
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 11:19:00 -0700, "Taimoor" wrote:
>
> I don't represnt Cisco or Cisco TAC when I say this,
> but working for
> cisco I can assure you that Cisco cares about nothing
> more than its
> customers. If you have opened a TAC case, then it is
> your right as a
> customer and Cisco's duty to give you absolutely
> everything we can to
> satisfy your networking needs. Please do not blame the
> inadaquecies of
> individual engineers to do their jobs with a company
> that really wants
> to make a difference.
> If you are not satisfied with your TAC support,
contact
> the TAC
> engineers manager, and give the feedback, even if it
> means filling out
> the bingo form and putting in comments, even if they
> just say Enginner
> requested a survey. Every bingo response with comments
> is read and
> requesting survey responses is seriously condoned. I
> bet you it wont
> happen again if you point it out.
> Once again, im sorry if you have felt short changed,
> but im very sure if
> you raise your points, to account teams tac managers,
> it wil never go
> unnoticed.
> We really do want to change the way you work, live,
> learn and play.
> FYI ... There is also a great forum called netpro...
> Which is very
> highly frequented... You might want to check it out.
> www.cisco.com/go/netpro
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Taimoor
>
>
> -----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 - 11:11:02 GMT-3