From: Sam Munzani (sam@munzani.com)
Date: Thu Jun 19 2003 - 15:04:50 GMT-3
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