RE: 3660 router-----Finished [7:12135]
Greeting to all, This problem proved to be a real bitch, and I thank you for all the advice. Here is the fix, and I am almost ashamed to say, but I want to pass this on so none of you all fall into the same trap as I did. As I said, in one post before, I kept getting the same error messages even after TAC sent me new memory and a new router. The 3rd TAC engineer was the charm, because he asked me if this was a TELCO version of the 3660. That was a real good question cuss I had no idea, as I have never worked on one. Well, that was the problem, it takes a TELCO FEATURE SET IOS. One telltail clue is that their is not a plastic front on the Telco version. I saw this right off the bat, but thought Cisco had just redesigned it. Man what a day. The other way to see if the router is an Enterprise version or Telco is to run the SN numbers. I can think off all the times i do this before I install an IOS. Maybe i should. Good news is I got it fixed and got a new Router out of the deal (thanks you TAC). And as TAC goes, they have pulled my Butt out of the sling more then once, so I have nothing but good to say for them. Yes I have gotten some DORKS before, but I have the option to tell them to get lost and give me a new Engineer. We pay a lot for this service. Hope this has been as educational for you all as it has been for me. Look below at link for the difference in the two. http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/rt/3600/prodlit/36kmp_ds.htm -Original Message- From: Charlie Hartwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 9:15 AM To: Mears, Rob Subject: Re: 3660 router [7:11917] Hi Rob, I didn't want to send this out to the whole group but I sympathise with your problem - I used to work on TAC and I see this sort of thing happening more and more. Unfortunately TAC have a new policy of employing people without much real technical experience (even pre-CCNA level people) and they put them on the "bread and butter" TAC teams to break them in. It will be one of those teams dealing with your problem - probably "euro-config". I know a lot of those guys and, although they all work hard, they don't have the experience to deal with a case that gets over complicated. If you have had an RMA already and you are still no nearer to solving the problem then the next step is to have the case escalated. I expect this case has been going on for a few days already and has probably passed the P3 SLA so the TAC can escalate to a more technical team to get you a speedy fix. I hope this helps and I would appreciate it if you kept this under your hat. Regards Charlie --- "Mears, Rob" wrote: > Any one ever had a problem loading IOS on a 3660 right out of the > box? I > have one with 64meg flash and 256 ram and the damn thing will not > come out > of RMMON. I have set the confreg to boot correctly still RMMON. I > have > flashed it with two different IOS (121&12.2), swapped out Flash, > MEM, even > sent the chassis back to Cisco and the new one had the same > problem. TAC has > no clue, they have been sending me part and giving me to different > Engineer > with no luck. > > What gives? > > Rob [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=12135&t=12135 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: 3660 router-----Finished [7:12135]
This brings up a point: why is there a telco version in the first place? What are these telco requirements and why are they there? I've been hearing little snippets about this but I don't know the details. >From what I've read so far, it sounds like some government agency had too much time on its hands and felt like being even more intrusive than usual. Who cares if there is a plastic cover or not? Who cares if the rack is 19" or 24" wide? Who cares if the equipment is more than 12" deep? Someone please explain this to me, and please tell me there are good reasons for these requirements. Otherwise, it will just annoy me and ruin my day. ;-) Besides, I have a feeling I'll be running into situations where equipment that I provision has to meet these requirements so I might as well know what they are, right? Thanks, John (who is just starting his 2nd cup of coffee...be gentle.) >>> "Mears, Rob" 7/12/01 8:55:12 AM >>> Greeting to all, This problem proved to be a real bitch, and I thank you for all the advice. Here is the fix, and I am almost ashamed to say, but I want to pass this on so none of you all fall into the same trap as I did. As I said, in one post before, I kept getting the same error messages even after TAC sent me new memory and a new router. The 3rd TAC engineer was the charm, because he asked me if this was a TELCO version of the 3660. That was a real good question cuss I had no idea, as I have never worked on one. Well, that was the problem, it takes a TELCO FEATURE SET IOS. One telltail clue is that their is not a plastic front on the Telco version. I saw this right off the bat, but thought Cisco had just redesigned it. Man what a day. The other way to see if the router is an Enterprise version or Telco is to run the SN numbers. I can think off all the times i do this before I install an IOS. Maybe i should. Good news is I got it fixed and got a new Router out of the deal (thanks you TAC). And as TAC goes, they have pulled my Butt out of the sling more then once, so I have nothing but good to say for them. Yes I have gotten some DORKS before, but I have the option to tell them to get lost and give me a new Engineer. We pay a lot for this service. Hope this has been as educational for you all as it has been for me. Look below at link for the difference in the two. http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/rt/3600/prodlit/36kmp_ds.htm -Original Message- From: Charlie Hartwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 9:15 AM To: Mears, Rob Subject: Re: 3660 router [7:11917] Hi Rob, I didn't want to send this out to the whole group but I sympathise with your problem - I used to work on TAC and I see this sort of thing happening more and more. Unfortunately TAC have a new policy of employing people without much real technical experience (even pre-CCNA level people) and they put them on the "bread and butter" TAC teams to break them in. It will be one of those teams dealing with your problem - probably "euro-config". I know a lot of those guys and, although they all work hard, they don't have the experience to deal with a case that gets over complicated. If you have had an RMA already and you are still no nearer to solving the problem then the next step is to have the case escalated. I expect this case has been going on for a few days already and has probably passed the P3 SLA so the TAC can escalate to a more technical team to get you a speedy fix. I hope this helps and I would appreciate it if you kept this under your hat. Regards Charlie --- "Mears, Rob" wrote: > Any one ever had a problem loading IOS on a 3660 right out of the > box? I > have one with 64meg flash and 256 ram and the damn thing will not > come out > of RMMON. I have set the confreg to boot correctly still RMMON. I > have > flashed it with two different IOS (121&12.2), swapped out Flash, > MEM, even > sent the chassis back to Cisco and the new one had the same > problem. TAC has > no clue, they have been sending me part and giving me to different > Engineer > with no luck. > > What gives? > > Rob [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=12141&t=12135 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: 3660 router-----Finished [7:12135]
I feel your pain Thank you, Rob Mears III, CCNA, MSCE, CNE, NNCDS, NNCSS, A+ Technical Mercenary Valor Telecom -Original Message- From: John Neiberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 10:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 3660 router-Finished [7:12135] This brings up a point: why is there a telco version in the first place? What are these telco requirements and why are they there? I've been hearing little snippets about this but I don't know the details. >From what I've read so far, it sounds like some government agency had too much time on its hands and felt like being even more intrusive than usual. Who cares if there is a plastic cover or not? Who cares if the rack is 19" or 24" wide? Who cares if the equipment is more than 12" deep? Someone please explain this to me, and please tell me there are good reasons for these requirements. Otherwise, it will just annoy me and ruin my day. ;-) Besides, I have a feeling I'll be running into situations where equipment that I provision has to meet these requirements so I might as well know what they are, right? Thanks, John (who is just starting his 2nd cup of coffee...be gentle.) >>> "Mears, Rob" 7/12/01 8:55:12 AM >>> Greeting to all, This problem proved to be a real bitch, and I thank you for all the advice. Here is the fix, and I am almost ashamed to say, but I want to pass this on so none of you all fall into the same trap as I did. As I said, in one post before, I kept getting the same error messages even after TAC sent me new memory and a new router. The 3rd TAC engineer was the charm, because he asked me if this was a TELCO version of the 3660. That was a real good question cuss I had no idea, as I have never worked on one. Well, that was the problem, it takes a TELCO FEATURE SET IOS. One telltail clue is that their is not a plastic front on the Telco version. I saw this right off the bat, but thought Cisco had just redesigned it. Man what a day. The other way to see if the router is an Enterprise version or Telco is to run the SN numbers. I can think off all the times i do this before I install an IOS. Maybe i should. Good news is I got it fixed and got a new Router out of the deal (thanks you TAC). And as TAC goes, they have pulled my Butt out of the sling more then once, so I have nothing but good to say for them. Yes I have gotten some DORKS before, but I have the option to tell them to get lost and give me a new Engineer. We pay a lot for this service. Hope this has been as educational for you all as it has been for me. Look below at link for the difference in the two. http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/rt/3600/prodlit/36kmp_ds.htm -Original Message- From: Charlie Hartwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 9:15 AM To: Mears, Rob Subject: Re: 3660 router [7:11917] Hi Rob, I didn't want to send this out to the whole group but I sympathise with your problem - I used to work on TAC and I see this sort of thing happening more and more. Unfortunately TAC have a new policy of employing people without much real technical experience (even pre-CCNA level people) and they put them on the "bread and butter" TAC teams to break them in. It will be one of those teams dealing with your problem - probably "euro-config". I know a lot of those guys and, although they all work hard, they don't have the experience to deal with a case that gets over complicated. If you have had an RMA already and you are still no nearer to solving the problem then the next step is to have the case escalated. I expect this case has been going on for a few days already and has probably passed the P3 SLA so the TAC can escalate to a more technical team to get you a speedy fix. I hope this helps and I would appreciate it if you kept this under your hat. Regards Charlie --- "Mears, Rob" wrote: > Any one ever had a problem loading IOS on a 3660 right out of the > box? I > have one with 64meg flash and 256 ram and the damn thing will not > come out > of RMMON. I have set the confreg to boot correctly still RMMON. I > have > flashed it with two different IOS (121&12.2), swapped out Flash, > MEM, even > sent the chassis back to Cisco and the new one had the same > problem. TAC has > no clue, they have been sending me part and giving me to different > Engineer > with no luck. > > What gives? > > Rob [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=12151&t=12135 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: 3660 router-----Finished [7:12135]
Telco requirements are quite strict There are Bellcore standards that are used at all central offices. It has nothing to do with the goverment but will Bell ensurring that any third party equipment will: 1) Fit in telco racks 2) No physically interfer with other equipment in telco racks 3) Not add to the fire load 4) Not cause any undue electrical problems (NEBS grounding, etc) It's all really for infrastructure protection Too bad they didn't have a "Telco" version of the IOS. Bob -Original Message- From: John Neiberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 8:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 3660 router-----Finished [7:12135] This brings up a point: why is there a telco version in the first place? What are these telco requirements and why are they there? I've been hearing little snippets about this but I don't know the details. >From what I've read so far, it sounds like some government agency had too much time on its hands and felt like being even more intrusive than usual. Who cares if there is a plastic cover or not? Who cares if the rack is 19" or 24" wide? Who cares if the equipment is more than 12" deep? Someone please explain this to me, and please tell me there are good reasons for these requirements. Otherwise, it will just annoy me and ruin my day. ;-) Besides, I have a feeling I'll be running into situations where equipment that I provision has to meet these requirements so I might as well know what they are, right? Thanks, John (who is just starting his 2nd cup of coffee...be gentle.) >>> "Mears, Rob" 7/12/01 8:55:12 AM >>> Greeting to all, This problem proved to be a real bitch, and I thank you for all the advice. Here is the fix, and I am almost ashamed to say, but I want to pass this on so none of you all fall into the same trap as I did. As I said, in one post before, I kept getting the same error messages even after TAC sent me new memory and a new router. The 3rd TAC engineer was the charm, because he asked me if this was a TELCO version of the 3660. That was a real good question cuss I had no idea, as I have never worked on one. Well, that was the problem, it takes a TELCO FEATURE SET IOS. One telltail clue is that their is not a plastic front on the Telco version. I saw this right off the bat, but thought Cisco had just redesigned it. Man what a day. The other way to see if the router is an Enterprise version or Telco is to run the SN numbers. I can think off all the times i do this before I install an IOS. Maybe i should. Good news is I got it fixed and got a new Router out of the deal (thanks you TAC). And as TAC goes, they have pulled my Butt out of the sling more then once, so I have nothing but good to say for them. Yes I have gotten some DORKS before, but I have the option to tell them to get lost and give me a new Engineer. We pay a lot for this service. Hope this has been as educational for you all as it has been for me. Look below at link for the difference in the two. http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/rt/3600/prodlit/36kmp_ds.htm -Original Message- From: Charlie Hartwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 9:15 AM To: Mears, Rob Subject: Re: 3660 router [7:11917] Hi Rob, I didn't want to send this out to the whole group but I sympathise with your problem - I used to work on TAC and I see this sort of thing happening more and more. Unfortunately TAC have a new policy of employing people without much real technical experience (even pre-CCNA level people) and they put them on the "bread and butter" TAC teams to break them in. It will be one of those teams dealing with your problem - probably "euro-config". I know a lot of those guys and, although they all work hard, they don't have the experience to deal with a case that gets over complicated. If you have had an RMA already and you are still no nearer to solving the problem then the next step is to have the case escalated. I expect this case has been going on for a few days already and has probably passed the P3 SLA so the TAC can escalate to a more technical team to get you a speedy fix. I hope this helps and I would appreciate it if you kept this under your hat. Regards Charlie --- "Mears, Rob" wrote: > Any one ever had a problem loading IOS on a 3660 right out of the > box? I > have one with 64meg flash and 256 ram and the damn thing will not > come out > of RMMON. I have set the confreg to boot correctly still RMMON. I > have > flashed it with two different IOS (121&12.2), swapped out Flash, > MEM, even > sent the chassis back to Cisco and the new one had the same > problem. TAC has > no clue, they have been sending me part and giving me to different > Engineer > with no luck. > > What gives? > > Rob [EMAIL PROTECTED
RE: 3660 router-----Finished [7:12135]
Uhh, they do! c3660-telcoent-mz.121-5.T9.bin -Original Message- From: Bob Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 12:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 3660 router-Finished [7:12135] Telco requirements are quite strict There are Bellcore standards that are used at all central offices. It has nothing to do with the goverment but will Bell ensurring that any third party equipment will: 1) Fit in telco racks 2) No physically interfer with other equipment in telco racks 3) Not add to the fire load 4) Not cause any undue electrical problems (NEBS grounding, etc) It's all really for infrastructure protection Too bad they didn't have a "Telco" version of the IOS. Bob -Original Message- From: John Neiberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 8:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 3660 router-----Finished [7:12135] This brings up a point: why is there a telco version in the first place? What are these telco requirements and why are they there? I've been hearing little snippets about this but I don't know the details. >From what I've read so far, it sounds like some government agency had too much time on its hands and felt like being even more intrusive than usual. Who cares if there is a plastic cover or not? Who cares if the rack is 19" or 24" wide? Who cares if the equipment is more than 12" deep? Someone please explain this to me, and please tell me there are good reasons for these requirements. Otherwise, it will just annoy me and ruin my day. ;-) Besides, I have a feeling I'll be running into situations where equipment that I provision has to meet these requirements so I might as well know what they are, right? Thanks, John (who is just starting his 2nd cup of coffee...be gentle.) >>> "Mears, Rob" 7/12/01 8:55:12 AM >>> Greeting to all, This problem proved to be a real bitch, and I thank you for all the advice. Here is the fix, and I am almost ashamed to say, but I want to pass this on so none of you all fall into the same trap as I did. As I said, in one post before, I kept getting the same error messages even after TAC sent me new memory and a new router. The 3rd TAC engineer was the charm, because he asked me if this was a TELCO version of the 3660. That was a real good question cuss I had no idea, as I have never worked on one. Well, that was the problem, it takes a TELCO FEATURE SET IOS. One telltail clue is that their is not a plastic front on the Telco version. I saw this right off the bat, but thought Cisco had just redesigned it. Man what a day. The other way to see if the router is an Enterprise version or Telco is to run the SN numbers. I can think off all the times i do this before I install an IOS. Maybe i should. Good news is I got it fixed and got a new Router out of the deal (thanks you TAC). And as TAC goes, they have pulled my Butt out of the sling more then once, so I have nothing but good to say for them. Yes I have gotten some DORKS before, but I have the option to tell them to get lost and give me a new Engineer. We pay a lot for this service. Hope this has been as educational for you all as it has been for me. Look below at link for the difference in the two. http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/rt/3600/prodlit/36kmp_ds.htm -Original Message- From: Charlie Hartwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 9:15 AM To: Mears, Rob Subject: Re: 3660 router [7:11917] Hi Rob, I didn't want to send this out to the whole group but I sympathise with your problem - I used to work on TAC and I see this sort of thing happening more and more. Unfortunately TAC have a new policy of employing people without much real technical experience (even pre-CCNA level people) and they put them on the "bread and butter" TAC teams to break them in. It will be one of those teams dealing with your problem - probably "euro-config". I know a lot of those guys and, although they all work hard, they don't have the experience to deal with a case that gets over complicated. If you have had an RMA already and you are still no nearer to solving the problem then the next step is to have the case escalated. I expect this case has been going on for a few days already and has probably passed the P3 SLA so the TAC can escalate to a more technical team to get you a speedy fix. I hope this helps and I would appreciate it if you kept this under your hat. Regards Charlie --- "Mears, Rob" wrote: > Any one ever had a problem loading IOS on a 3660 right out of the > box? I > have one with 64meg flash and 256 ram and the damn thing will not > come out > of RMMON. I have set the confreg to boot correctly still RMMON. I > have > flashed it with two different IOS (121&12.2), swapped out Flash, > MEM, even > sent the ch
RE: 3660 router-----Finished [7:12135]
Sorry... I meant a version of the IOS that was as "bullet proof" as the physical contruction of the telco version of the router... Just trying for a little humour. -Original Message- From: Peter Slow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 10:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 3660 router-----Finished [7:12135] Uhh, they do! c3660-telcoent-mz.121-5.T9.bin -Original Message- From: Bob Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 12:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 3660 router-----Finished [7:12135] Telco requirements are quite strict There are Bellcore standards that are used at all central offices. It has nothing to do with the goverment but will Bell ensurring that any third party equipment will: 1) Fit in telco racks 2) No physically interfer with other equipment in telco racks 3) Not add to the fire load 4) Not cause any undue electrical problems (NEBS grounding, etc) It's all really for infrastructure protection Too bad they didn't have a "Telco" version of the IOS. Bob -Original Message- From: John Neiberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 8:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 3660 router-Finished [7:12135] This brings up a point: why is there a telco version in the first place? What are these telco requirements and why are they there? I've been hearing little snippets about this but I don't know the details. >From what I've read so far, it sounds like some government agency had too much time on its hands and felt like being even more intrusive than usual. Who cares if there is a plastic cover or not? Who cares if the rack is 19" or 24" wide? Who cares if the equipment is more than 12" deep? Someone please explain this to me, and please tell me there are good reasons for these requirements. Otherwise, it will just annoy me and ruin my day. ;-) Besides, I have a feeling I'll be running into situations where equipment that I provision has to meet these requirements so I might as well know what they are, right? Thanks, John (who is just starting his 2nd cup of coffee...be gentle.) >>> "Mears, Rob" 7/12/01 8:55:12 AM >>> Greeting to all, This problem proved to be a real bitch, and I thank you for all the advice. Here is the fix, and I am almost ashamed to say, but I want to pass this on so none of you all fall into the same trap as I did. As I said, in one post before, I kept getting the same error messages even after TAC sent me new memory and a new router. The 3rd TAC engineer was the charm, because he asked me if this was a TELCO version of the 3660. That was a real good question cuss I had no idea, as I have never worked on one. Well, that was the problem, it takes a TELCO FEATURE SET IOS. One telltail clue is that their is not a plastic front on the Telco version. I saw this right off the bat, but thought Cisco had just redesigned it. Man what a day. The other way to see if the router is an Enterprise version or Telco is to run the SN numbers. I can think off all the times i do this before I install an IOS. Maybe i should. Good news is I got it fixed and got a new Router out of the deal (thanks you TAC). And as TAC goes, they have pulled my Butt out of the sling more then once, so I have nothing but good to say for them. Yes I have gotten some DORKS before, but I have the option to tell them to get lost and give me a new Engineer. We pay a lot for this service. Hope this has been as educational for you all as it has been for me. Look below at link for the difference in the two. http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/rt/3600/prodlit/36kmp_ds.htm -Original Message- From: Charlie Hartwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 9:15 AM To: Mears, Rob Subject: Re: 3660 router [7:11917] Hi Rob, I didn't want to send this out to the whole group but I sympathise with your problem - I used to work on TAC and I see this sort of thing happening more and more. Unfortunately TAC have a new policy of employing people without much real technical experience (even pre-CCNA level people) and they put them on the "bread and butter" TAC teams to break them in. It will be one of those teams dealing with your problem - probably "euro-config". I know a lot of those guys and, although they all work hard, they don't have the experience to deal with a case that gets over complicated. If you have had an RMA already and you are still no nearer to solving the problem then the next step is to have the case escalated. I expect this case has been going on for a few days already and has probably passed the P3 SLA so the TAC can escalate to a more technical team to get you a speedy fix. I hope this helps and I would appreciate it if you kept this under your hat. Regards Charlie --- "Mears, Rob"
RE: 3660 router-----Finished [7:12135]
that is! that's the one. Damn Telco stuff. You know it was said if they were to burn (Telco Routers), it would not put off toxic fumes (no plastic an telco requirment) . I looked around the CO and wondered about the billions little blue and white analog wires we have form ceiling to floor and wondered what's the point. Smoke from the router won't kill me, but the plastic from the wires will. Man rob -Original Message- From: Peter Slow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 12:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 3660 router-----Finished [7:12135] Uhh, they do! c3660-telcoent-mz.121-5.T9.bin -Original Message- From: Bob Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 12:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 3660 router-----Finished [7:12135] Telco requirements are quite strict There are Bellcore standards that are used at all central offices. It has nothing to do with the goverment but will Bell ensurring that any third party equipment will: 1) Fit in telco racks 2) No physically interfer with other equipment in telco racks 3) Not add to the fire load 4) Not cause any undue electrical problems (NEBS grounding, etc) It's all really for infrastructure protection Too bad they didn't have a "Telco" version of the IOS. Bob -Original Message- From: John Neiberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 8:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 3660 router-Finished [7:12135] This brings up a point: why is there a telco version in the first place? What are these telco requirements and why are they there? I've been hearing little snippets about this but I don't know the details. >From what I've read so far, it sounds like some government agency had too much time on its hands and felt like being even more intrusive than usual. Who cares if there is a plastic cover or not? Who cares if the rack is 19" or 24" wide? Who cares if the equipment is more than 12" deep? Someone please explain this to me, and please tell me there are good reasons for these requirements. Otherwise, it will just annoy me and ruin my day. ;-) Besides, I have a feeling I'll be running into situations where equipment that I provision has to meet these requirements so I might as well know what they are, right? Thanks, John (who is just starting his 2nd cup of coffee...be gentle.) >>> "Mears, Rob" 7/12/01 8:55:12 AM >>> Greeting to all, This problem proved to be a real bitch, and I thank you for all the advice. Here is the fix, and I am almost ashamed to say, but I want to pass this on so none of you all fall into the same trap as I did. As I said, in one post before, I kept getting the same error messages even after TAC sent me new memory and a new router. The 3rd TAC engineer was the charm, because he asked me if this was a TELCO version of the 3660. That was a real good question cuss I had no idea, as I have never worked on one. Well, that was the problem, it takes a TELCO FEATURE SET IOS. One telltail clue is that their is not a plastic front on the Telco version. I saw this right off the bat, but thought Cisco had just redesigned it. Man what a day. The other way to see if the router is an Enterprise version or Telco is to run the SN numbers. I can think off all the times i do this before I install an IOS. Maybe i should. Good news is I got it fixed and got a new Router out of the deal (thanks you TAC). And as TAC goes, they have pulled my Butt out of the sling more then once, so I have nothing but good to say for them. Yes I have gotten some DORKS before, but I have the option to tell them to get lost and give me a new Engineer. We pay a lot for this service. Hope this has been as educational for you all as it has been for me. Look below at link for the difference in the two. http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/rt/3600/prodlit/36kmp_ds.htm -Original Message- From: Charlie Hartwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 9:15 AM To: Mears, Rob Subject: Re: 3660 router [7:11917] Hi Rob, I didn't want to send this out to the whole group but I sympathise with your problem - I used to work on TAC and I see this sort of thing happening more and more. Unfortunately TAC have a new policy of employing people without much real technical experience (even pre-CCNA level people) and they put them on the "bread and butter" TAC teams to break them in. It will be one of those teams dealing with your problem - probably "euro-config". I know a lot of those guys and, although they all work hard, they don't have the experience to deal with a case that gets over complicated. If you have had an RMA already and you are still no nearer to solving the problem then the next step is to have the case escalated. I expect this case has been going on for a few days
RE: 3660 router-----Finished [7:12135]
Not enough Watts to let the "magic smoke" out of the cables. The hard gear is MUCH more likely to catch fire from a short. The most likely scenarios where the wire will ignite is an external source like arson, outside fire or burning equipment. If fire gets to the wires and the fire suppression systems have not done their job I hope you have "geographic redundancy" built into your systems. :) -Original Message- From: Mears, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 2:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 3660 router-----Finished [7:12135] that is! that's the one. Damn Telco stuff. You know it was said if they were to burn (Telco Routers), it would not put off toxic fumes (no plastic an telco requirment) . I looked around the CO and wondered about the billions little blue and white analog wires we have form ceiling to floor and wondered what's the point. Smoke from the router won't kill me, but the plastic from the wires will. Man rob -Original Message- From: Peter Slow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 12:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 3660 router-Finished [7:12135] Uhh, they do! c3660-telcoent-mz.121-5.T9.bin -Original Message- From: Bob Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 12:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 3660 router-Finished [7:12135] Telco requirements are quite strict There are Bellcore standards that are used at all central offices. It has nothing to do with the goverment but will Bell ensurring that any third party equipment will: 1) Fit in telco racks 2) No physically interfer with other equipment in telco racks 3) Not add to the fire load 4) Not cause any undue electrical problems (NEBS grounding, etc) It's all really for infrastructure protection Too bad they didn't have a "Telco" version of the IOS. Bob -Original Message- From: John Neiberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 8:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 3660 router-Finished [7:12135] This brings up a point: why is there a telco version in the first place? What are these telco requirements and why are they there? I've been hearing little snippets about this but I don't know the details. >From what I've read so far, it sounds like some government agency had too much time on its hands and felt like being even more intrusive than usual. Who cares if there is a plastic cover or not? Who cares if the rack is 19" or 24" wide? Who cares if the equipment is more than 12" deep? Someone please explain this to me, and please tell me there are good reasons for these requirements. Otherwise, it will just annoy me and ruin my day. ;-) Besides, I have a feeling I'll be running into situations where equipment that I provision has to meet these requirements so I might as well know what they are, right? Thanks, John (who is just starting his 2nd cup of coffee...be gentle.) >>> "Mears, Rob" 7/12/01 8:55:12 AM >>> Greeting to all, This problem proved to be a real bitch, and I thank you for all the advice. Here is the fix, and I am almost ashamed to say, but I want to pass this on so none of you all fall into the same trap as I did. As I said, in one post before, I kept getting the same error messages even after TAC sent me new memory and a new router. The 3rd TAC engineer was the charm, because he asked me if this was a TELCO version of the 3660. That was a real good question cuss I had no idea, as I have never worked on one. Well, that was the problem, it takes a TELCO FEATURE SET IOS. One telltail clue is that their is not a plastic front on the Telco version. I saw this right off the bat, but thought Cisco had just redesigned it. Man what a day. The other way to see if the router is an Enterprise version or Telco is to run the SN numbers. I can think off all the times i do this before I install an IOS. Maybe i should. Good news is I got it fixed and got a new Router out of the deal (thanks you TAC). And as TAC goes, they have pulled my Butt out of the sling more then once, so I have nothing but good to say for them. Yes I have gotten some DORKS before, but I have the option to tell them to get lost and give me a new Engineer. We pay a lot for this service. Hope this has been as educational for you all as it has been for me. Look below at link for the difference in the two. http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/rt/3600/prodlit/36kmp_ds.htm -Original Message- From: Charlie Hartwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 9:15 AM To: Mears, Rob Subject: Re: 3660 router [7:11917] Hi Rob, I didn't want to send this out to the whole group but I sympathise with your problem - I used to work on TAC and I see this sort of thing happening more and more. Unfortunately TAC have a new
RE: 3660 router-----Finished [7:12135]
Some years ago a Main Distribution Frame burned in a NY Telephone Central Office in Manhattan, NY. It was located on 3rd Ave. All the trunking that went up the East side crossed this point. It was a major disaster that took months to repair. > -Original Message- > From: Harrison, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 1:39 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: 3660 router-----Finished [7:12135] > > > Not enough Watts to let the "magic smoke" out of the cables. > The hard gear > is MUCH more likely to catch fire from a short. The most > likely scenarios > where the wire will ignite is an external source like arson, > outside fire or > burning equipment. If fire gets to the wires and the fire suppression > systems have not done their job I hope you have "geographic > redundancy" > built into your systems. :) > > -Original Message- > From: Mears, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 2:08 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: 3660 router-Finished [7:12135] > > > that is! that's the one. Damn Telco stuff. You know it was > said if they were > to burn (Telco Routers), it would not put off toxic fumes (no > plastic an > telco requirment) . I looked around the CO and wondered about > the billions > little blue and white analog wires we have form ceiling to floor and > wondered what's the point. Smoke from the router won't kill > me, but the > plastic from the wires will. Man > > > rob > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Slow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 12:26 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: 3660 router-Finished [7:12135] > > > Uhh, they do! > c3660-telcoent-mz.121-5.T9.bin > > -----Original Message- > From: Bob Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 12:34 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: 3660 router-Finished [7:12135] > > > Telco requirements are quite strict > There are Bellcore standards that are used at all central offices. > It has nothing to do with the goverment but will Bell > ensurring that any > third party equipment will: > 1) Fit in telco racks > 2) No physically interfer with other equipment in telco racks > 3) Not add to the fire load > 4) Not cause any undue electrical problems (NEBS grounding, etc) > > It's all really for infrastructure protection > Too bad they didn't have a "Telco" version of the IOS. > > Bob > > -Original Message- > From: John Neiberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 8:29 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: 3660 router-Finished [7:12135] > > > This brings up a point: why is there a telco version in the first > place? What are these telco requirements and why are they > there? I've > been hearing little snippets about this but I don't know the details. > From what I've read so far, it sounds like some government agency had > too much time on its hands and felt like being even more > intrusive than > usual. > > Who cares if there is a plastic cover or not? Who cares if > the rack is > 19" or 24" wide? Who cares if the equipment is more than 12" deep? > > Someone please explain this to me, and please tell me there are good > reasons for these requirements. Otherwise, it will just annoy me and > ruin my day. ;-) Besides, I have a feeling I'll be running into > situations where equipment that I provision has to meet these > requirements so I might as well know what they are, right? > > Thanks, > John (who is just starting his 2nd cup of coffee...be gentle.) > > >>> "Mears, Rob" 7/12/01 8:55:12 AM >>> > Greeting to all, > > This problem proved to be a real bitch, and I thank you for all the > advice. > > Here is the fix, and I am almost ashamed to say, but I want to pass > this on > so none of you all fall into the same trap as I did. > > As I said, in one post before, I kept getting the same error messages > even > after TAC sent me new memory and a new router. The 3rd TAC > engineer was > the > charm, because he asked me if this was a TELCO version of the 3660. > That was > a real good question cuss I had no idea, as I have never worked on > one. > Well, that was the problem, it takes a TELCO FEATURE SET IOS. One > telltail > clue is that their is not a plastic front on the Telco version. > I saw this right off the bat, but thought Cisco had just > redesigned it. > Man > what a day. The other way t