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 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
> Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., and its subsidiary and
> affiliate companies are not responsible for errors or
> omissions in this
> e-mail message. Any personal comments made in this e-mail do
> not reflect the
> views of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.
> Report misconduct
> and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=12186&t=12135
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
