Only part failure I've ever had was out of the box with a 2900 with two
slots. One slot had a FDDI module, and the other a FE module. It was
acting as an expensive transceiver. TAC stayed on the phone while we
troubleshooted the hardware and ended up getting 3 support personnel
involved as it
Yeah, I've had experience with their Cache Engine team and found it lacking
as well. Turns out an online banking customer using the box couldn't even
use it as the CE500 won't work with https/SSL certificates (I believe that
was the issue, might be a little off on my terminology). Too bad TAC
e).
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of J
Roysdon
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 10:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT (sort of) TAC Horror Stories
Yeah, I've had experience with their Cache Engine team and found it lacking
Bob,
I never worked for Cisco TAC, but I was a TAC employee for two other
networking companies over a 4 year period of time. Over the past two
years, most network equipment manufacturers have had substantial backlogs
of new orders that need to be filled as soon as possible. The QA groups
are
Just curious about other peoples experiences with TAC on products "gone
bad"...
1) Get call while almost in bed at 9:30 PM
2) 3548XL GigE interface goes down...
3) Restart and power cycle switch to no avail..
4) Swap out GBIC and fiber patch with no more luck...
5) Call TAC, luckily equipment is
Bob Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just curious about other peoples experiences with TAC on products "gone
bad"...
1) Get call while almost in bed at 9:30 PM
2) 3548XL GigE interface goes down...
The problem here was that you are using 3548XL switches...
if you were using a modular
Actually ...
--- Bob Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just curious about other peoples experiences with
TAC on products "gone
bad"...
1) Get call while almost in bed at 9:30 PM
2) 3548XL GigE interface goes down...
3) Restart and power cycle switch to no avail..
4) Swap out GBIC and
to
swat a nat.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
dre
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 10:41 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT (sort of) TAC Horror Stories
Bob Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just curious about other peoples
Hi,
First of all, this isn't a problem with cisco TAC.
They assisted you and dispatched hardware in a timely
manner. This is a problem with damage during shipping
or possibly defective units from the warehouse or
supplier used. I don't work for them but do know
sometimes that companies use other
As pointed out by many, the problem was not so much with TAC than with the
SmartNet spares system. I consider the whole program under the umbrella of
TAC (considering the amount we pay for SmartNet) hoever the TAC staff
themselves have always been extremely respnosive and dependable
In this
I have never had a problem with TAC that i can think
of. Their cache engine support team is not that well
experienced but they get the job done, just takes a
little longer then with the RS groups. I have had a
lot of failures with the 3548XL switches though. Bad
GBIC and loose screws during
"dre" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
94lis6$icg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:94lis6$icg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
I've personally never experienced any problems with the TAC.
It is often that I get a front line person that has no idea
what I'm talking about, and sometimes they try to help anyways,
12 matches
Mail list logo
