Hi Ziv,
But I guess we'll finally opt for letting the Cisco QA be enough as
a guarantee the devices work (there's always RMA) and have Alex's
suggestion be the winner here, just be as nebulous as you can and
follow the "ill-defined and metaphysical characteristique" of such
undefined term as "Acceptance Test Procedure"
Is a hardware failure what the customer is worried about? You
mentioned a turn-key solution and as a customer I would be more
worried about if the solution actually works as expected. The detail
that you have RMA contracts with Cisco and within what time is only
part of it. Routers/Firewalls are mostly a software product with all
the consequences.
Regarding the "ill-defined" - may work. Sometimes it also works to be
extremely detailed. You describe a test procedure in the very detail,
so there is no doubt what you have tested and how to reproduce it.
Doesn't mean the test has to be complicated - even if it's trivial you
can hide this is many test steps ;-)
E.g. power-cycling a whole setup is a valid test - after an power
outage you want your solution come back up again.
Regards, Marc
I'd ask the customer:
Are you married? Did you fill an ATP form before you said "Yes, I
do" ??? No??? Then c'mon, gimme a break!!! It's just a darn router
we're talking here, not chaining your entire life with the same
woman!!
A router can be replaced when malfunctioning, with a wife it's a bit
more difficult, isn't it??
Thak you all again!
Ziv
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Balashov [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 3:38 PM
To: Ziv Leyes
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Acceptance Test Procedure for New Cisco Devices
But if it's attached to a legal statement, the more nebulous and
elastic
(aka BS) it is the more protection you have from incurring liability
for
actually having done or not done something.
That gets easier when the "acceptance testing process" is ill-defined
and metaphysical, not harder.
Ziv Leyes wrote:
Ok, let me be more specific
When we buy devices for our own use, we just open it, plug it, and
start using them, if there are any problems, we call the provider
and they fix the problem (RMA or whatever)
In this case, we're going to sell the equipment as a kind of turn-
key project, and the customer asked us to provide them with "our"
ATP, which we don't really use for ourselves, so I'd like to
implement one sort of testing procedure from now on for this type
of cases. We're going to attach this to a legal statement so we
can't just type some BS there and that's it, we want to actually
implement it, and if we write we do a,b,c,d then we'll going to do
a,b,c,d procedure for real.
I was thinking some of you guys may already use this kind of test
routines and can help me creating one.
I don't need some really serious stuff, I can imagine I'll check
the delivery status of the package, open it, check all the contents
that need to be there are there, to plug the device and see it
works, perhaps load some configuration, plug the hardware that is
planned to hold if any (HWICS and so), perform some soft and hard
reboots, see the device responds, there are links on all
interfaces, and pack it back exactly as it was.
The problem is I don't know how exactly write it down on a kind of
form that there's a checkbox for each test.
Does anybody have some ready to go stuff?
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Rathlev [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 1:31 PM
To: Ziv Leyes
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Acceptance Test Procedure for New Cisco Devices
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 12:13 +0200, Ziv Leyes wrote:
Could anyone share if possible a kind of basic ATP you may use for
new
Cisco devices that you may receive?
I'm in need of providing a customer with such procedure for two new
devices, a Cisco 1861 router and a Cisco ASA5510
Is it just the hardware that needs to be acceptance tested or is it
some
kind of service depending on this hardware? I don't specifically
recall
the term "ATP" but I guess Operational Acceptance Testing is the
same.
We only supply services, and the acceptance tests are defined by the
receiving end, typically with some help from a Service Manager and a
network engineer. The tests only check functionality not endurance of
the system. Typically the tests check everything defined in the SLA.
When receiving hardware we use for ourselves we have no formal
acceptance tests; for core equipment it runs in a lab for some time
and
the takes on a role as a standby unit in the production net.
Sometimes
when time limits dictate it we end up just placing some new
component in
an important role without testing. I hope the manufacturer does some
kind of burn in test. :-)
HTH,
Peter
************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
computer viruses.
************************************************************************************
************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
computer viruses.
************************************************************************************
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
--
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (678) 237-1775
************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
computer viruses.
************************************************************************************
************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
computer viruses.
************************************************************************************
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
--
Marc Binderberger <[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
