That's got to be one of the lamest things I've ever heard. I'd tell
accounting to stick it, and that unless they want to learn how to make
routers work and figure out the correct parts, that perfectly legitimate
third-party serial cables are no different than the Cisco blue & logo'd
cables other than that they cost a third of the cost.
That's like saying you won't by Kingston/etc DRAM or Flash at 1/2th to 1/4th
the cost of Cisco products. Do you have the same limitations on this? They
have the same "Cisco part no." but they're definitely not from Cisco's
vendors.
I would make a huge fuss over this and take it up as far as I had to, with
the message that accounting was making the company throw away money so items
would fit into the categories they wanted. I don't know how many routers
you're having to buy for, but this sort of corporate waste just makes me go
ballistic. It's the sort of thing the US Government is great at.
Worst case, here is how I'd get around it: When you order the cables, just
order 3-4 at a time so they come in at over $100 and tell the vendor you
want them to show as a line-item of quantity 1.
--
Jason Roysdon, CCNP+Security/CCDP, MCSE, CNA, Network+, A+
List email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http://jason.artoo.net/
""Ray Mosely"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> OK, for those of you who continue to be
> incredulous, let me spell this out.
> We have a budget with budget lines. Commodities
> fall under $100, and equipment is over $100.
> Third party cables would be commodities, and
> there isn't enough money in that budget line
> to buy cables, because somebody else didn't
> put enough money in that budget line.
>
> On the other hand, there's too much money in
> the equipment budget line, so if we buy Cisco
> cables bundled with a Cisco router, then we
> can actually get cables that will work. Even
> if our supplier had third party cables (which
> it doesn't), we can't legitimately make the
> bookkeepers think that this is a manufacturer's
> bundle. So I have to buy Cisco cables at $150
> a set, instead of third party cables at $50 a
> piece.
>
> Now, I'm not sure that any of this has anything
> to do with Cisco routers/routing, which is why
> I did NOT say any of this to begin with. I said
> simply that I could not buy third party cables,
> which is true and the only fact that is truly
> relevant. So hopefully, we can lay this to rest.
>
>
> Unless someone has the part number for an actual
> Cisco back to back cable, which is all that I asked
> for in the first place, I would like to see
> this thread buried.
>
> Thanks to everyone for their advice,
> Ray Mosely
> CCNA, MCSE
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> John Neiberger
> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 2:06 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: back to back cables [7:527]
>
>
> Wow, why not? Does your employer make a habit of spending three times as
> much as necessary? :-) Just kidding...
>
> If that's the case, then go with the part numbers I gave you. For the
sake
> of performance you'll want to go with the v.35 cables.
>
> John
>
> | It's simple. Cisco doesn't, to my knowledge,
> | make a back to back cable. I'm not allowed to
> | order a third party cable.
> | Ray M.
> |
> | -----Original Message-----
> | From: John Neiberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> | Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 4:42 PM
> | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | Subject: Re: back to back cables [7:527]
> |
> |
> | Do I even dare ask why you are allowed to use two regular cables but
not
> | a back to back cable?
> |
> | Hmm... while writing that I just thought of one good reason. Whenever
> | I order a back-to-back cable I usually get an RS-232 cable. This would
> | tend to limit the clock rate between the two routers. If I needed a
> | higher speed I'd have to find a V.35 back to back cable which seem to
be
> | harder to find.
> |
> | If you want V.35:
> |
> | CAB-V35MT=
> | CAB-V35FC=
> |
> | If you want RS-232:
> |
> | CAB-232MT=
> | CAB-232FC=
> |
> | HTH,
> | John
> |
> | >>> "Ray Mosely" 4/13/01 4:29:14 PM >>>
> | I'm sorry to bring up this old old old
> | thread, but I'm in a situation where I
> | need a back to back cable for some 2501's,
> | but I'm not allowed to use a back to back
> | cable.
> |
> | There are two bona fide Cisco cables which
> | can be hooked together to make one back
> | to back cable (at three times the price
> | of a back to back). Anybody know the
> | part numbers of the Cisco cables? It's
> | for back to back on the WAN ports.
> |
> | Thanks,
> | Ray Mosely
> | CCNA, MCSE
> | FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> | http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> | Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> |
> |
> |
> |
> | FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> | Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________
> Send a cool gift with your E-Card
> http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=727&t=527
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
