Re: [c-nsp] Tabo Topic? Third party Maintenance

[Pavel Skovajsa]

Turns out this information is "kinda" hidden in various pdfs see for
example Cisco TAC time presentations or cisco live about "what does sw
version X bring over version Y to the table"


-pavel

Dňa 27.1.2017 11:24 používateľ "James Bensley" 
napísal:

On 24 January 2017 at 17:54, Lee  wrote:
> On 1/24/17, James Bensley  wrote:
>> Also a month or two after our bug scrub was completed the new major
>> milestone/stable versions of code for the devices we had tested was
>> released (our scrub was finished when "X" was the stable recommend
>> version) so we said to our AS engineer "now that X+1 is out, and you
>> recommended X, do you think we should go for X" and they obviously
>> said "yes".
>
> Interesting..  I'd get an offer for a bug scrub on the new version.

Sorry that was a typo, should have been "X+1":

so we said to our AS engineer "now that X+1 is out, and you
recommended X, do you think we should go for X+1" and they obviously
said "yes".

So I'm implying here the bug scrub was a waste of time.

>> If you have the resources then I'm not such a fan of this service.
>
> On the other hand, when Cisco does a bug scrub they see _all_ the
> bugs, not just the publicly visible ones.  There's been a couple of
> times I've gone back & forth with our AS engineer about the details of
> some bug that had no public description & a time or two when he
> suggested we hold off on an upgrade until after the psirt
> announcement.

So something that Cisco don't do which is very annoying is show all
their bugs and bug stats. I have clicked on a bug countless times that
affects us on cisco.com and then I get the page "this is an internal
bug, how did you hear about this?" and I have to ask TAC to tell me
about the bug. They should also be releasing bug stats: how many
people filed bugs for feature X with firmware Y on device Z. What is
the bug fix rate for X, Y and X etc. Is the rate of bug reports for
new-ish-platform P starting to decresae now? Has the fix rate for
old-ish-platform O tailed off now?

Cheers,
James.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Tabo Topic? Third party Maintenance

[James Bensley]

On 24 January 2017 at 17:54, Lee  wrote:
> On 1/24/17, James Bensley  wrote:
>> Also a month or two after our bug scrub was completed the new major
>> milestone/stable versions of code for the devices we had tested was
>> released (our scrub was finished when "X" was the stable recommend
>> version) so we said to our AS engineer "now that X+1 is out, and you
>> recommended X, do you think we should go for X" and they obviously
>> said "yes".
>
> Interesting..  I'd get an offer for a bug scrub on the new version.

Sorry that was a typo, should have been "X+1":

so we said to our AS engineer "now that X+1 is out, and you
recommended X, do you think we should go for X+1" and they obviously
said "yes".

So I'm implying here the bug scrub was a waste of time.

>> If you have the resources then I'm not such a fan of this service.
>
> On the other hand, when Cisco does a bug scrub they see _all_ the
> bugs, not just the publicly visible ones.  There's been a couple of
> times I've gone back & forth with our AS engineer about the details of
> some bug that had no public description & a time or two when he
> suggested we hold off on an upgrade until after the psirt
> announcement.

So something that Cisco don't do which is very annoying is show all
their bugs and bug stats. I have clicked on a bug countless times that
affects us on cisco.com and then I get the page "this is an internal
bug, how did you hear about this?" and I have to ask TAC to tell me
about the bug. They should also be releasing bug stats: how many
people filed bugs for feature X with firmware Y on device Z. What is
the bug fix rate for X, Y and X etc. Is the rate of bug reports for
new-ish-platform P starting to decresae now? Has the fix rate for
old-ish-platform O tailed off now?

Cheers,
James.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Tabo Topic? Third party Maintenance

[Lee]

On 1/24/17, James Bensley  wrote:
> On 24 January 2017 at 10:04,   wrote:
>>> Simon Lockhart
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:09 AM
>>>
>>> On Tue Jan 24, 2017 at 09:02:18AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 07:33:08PM -0500, Charles Sprickman via
>> cisco-nsp
>>> wrote:
>>> > > I have to say, I haven???t been impressed with their support in a
>>> > > long time.  We have smartnet really just for hardware, and recently
>>> > > I figured that since we have support, I???d actually try and offload
>>> > > a task that I hate - picking a stable version of IOS that has all
>>> > > the security issues resolved.
>>> >
>>> > Bwahahaha.  Sorry.
>>>
>>> We were also told that if we wanted Cisco to do a 'bug scrub', to see if
>> we
>>> would be affected by any known bugs, then they offer this as a
>>> seperately
>>> chargeable service. Yes, really, they want us to pay them more money to
>> find
>>> out how buggy their code releases are...
>>>
>> How it works is 
> ...
>> It's a long and tedious process and it costs a small fortune, but I think
>> it's worth it.
>> At least you get a more detailed map of the minefield.
>
> In the case of Cisco a bug scrub comes from Cisco AS. I could have
> bought a house for the amount we spent with AS and not only that, we
> could have just rented all the kit we need, done this ourselves in the
> lab and probably had change for beer at the end.
>
> Also a month or two after our bug scrub was completed the new major
> milestone/stable versions of code for the devices we had tested was
> released (our scrub was finished when "X" was the stable recommend
> version) so we said to our AS engineer "now that X+1 is out, and you
> recommended X, do you think we should go for X" and they obviously
> said "yes".

Interesting..  I'd get an offer for a bug scrub on the new version.

> If you have the resources then I'm not such a fan of this service.

On the other hand, when Cisco does a bug scrub they see _all_ the
bugs, not just the publicly visible ones.  There's been a couple of
times I've gone back & forth with our AS engineer about the details of
some bug that had no public description & a time or two when he
suggested we hold off on an upgrade until after the psirt
announcement.

Regards,
Lee
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Tabo Topic? Third party Maintenance

[James Bensley]

On 24 January 2017 at 12:46,   wrote:
>> James Bensley
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 11:15 AM
>>
>> On 23 January 2017 at 17:16, Rick Martin  wrote:
>> >
>>
>> It’s fucking expensive to have fully loaded ASR9000 chassis just sitting 
>> around
>> in a cupboard ready to go.
>
> That's what lab equipment is for, although what are the chances to ever need 
> to completely replace a fully populated ASR9k.

Right but you need (at least) one chassis, one PSU, one fan tray, one
of each line card, etc ec, although two of each is better as you don't
want to unwrap something and found out its fooked. So you (we) end up
with enough to make up a fully loaded chassis.

> You'd normally need at least one piece of every type of equipment used in the 
> network.
> But these spare parts are not sitting on a shelf, they are used daily to test 
> migrations, new services,...  ,at least you know they are working when you 
> need them.

Well for us there is a stark difference. Firstly the lab isn't within
SLA time of the entire UK so logistically it doesn't work for us.
Secondly since this is a Cisco mailing list, specifically for Cisco
they do a not-for-resale type discount which we use to buy lab
equipment, we get something crazy like 70% off list price and the kit
is not to be used for revenue generating purposes (i.e. deployed into
the production network). Thirdly depending on your churn rate, it's
not helpful to have kit being used in the lab ripped out in the middle
of the night and curried off to a remote PoP when the lab is being
used to PoC or debug some time sensitive or live network issue.

As before, "your requirements are not mine" blah blah blah, IANAL,
customers, SLAs, FML.

Cheers,
James.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Tabo Topic? Third party Maintenance

[adamv0025]

> James Bensley
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 11:15 AM
> 
> On 23 January 2017 at 17:16, Rick Martin  wrote:
> >
> 
> It’s fucking expensive to have fully loaded ASR9000 chassis just sitting 
> around
> in a cupboard ready to go. 

That's what lab equipment is for, although what are the chances to ever need to 
completely replace a fully populated ASR9k. 
You'd normally need at least one piece of every type of equipment used in the 
network. 
But these spare parts are not sitting on a shelf, they are used daily to test 
migrations, new services,...  ,at least you know they are working when you need 
them.

adam


netconsultings.com
::carrier-class solutions for the telecommunications industry::

___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Tabo Topic? Third party Maintenance

[James Bensley]

On 24 January 2017 at 10:04,   wrote:
>> Simon Lockhart
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:09 AM
>>
>> On Tue Jan 24, 2017 at 09:02:18AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 07:33:08PM -0500, Charles Sprickman via
> cisco-nsp
>> wrote:
>> > > I have to say, I haven???t been impressed with their support in a
>> > > long time.  We have smartnet really just for hardware, and recently
>> > > I figured that since we have support, I???d actually try and offload
>> > > a task that I hate - picking a stable version of IOS that has all
>> > > the security issues resolved.
>> >
>> > Bwahahaha.  Sorry.
>>
>> We were also told that if we wanted Cisco to do a 'bug scrub', to see if
> we
>> would be affected by any known bugs, then they offer this as a seperately
>> chargeable service. Yes, really, they want us to pay them more money to
> find
>> out how buggy their code releases are...
>>
> How it works is 
...
> It's a long and tedious process and it costs a small fortune, but I think
> it's worth it.
> At least you get a more detailed map of the minefield.

In the case of Cisco a bug scrub comes from Cisco AS. I could have
bought a house for the amount we spent with AS and not only that, we
could have just rented all the kit we need, done this ourselves in the
lab and probably had change for beer at the end.

Also a month or two after our bug scrub was completed the new major
milestone/stable versions of code for the devices we had tested was
released (our scrub was finished when "X" was the stable recommend
version) so we said to our AS engineer "now that X+1 is out, and you
recommended X, do you think we should go for X" and they obviously
said "yes".

If you have the resources then I'm not such a fan of this service.

Cheers,
James.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Tabo Topic? Third party Maintenance

[James Bensley]

On 23 January 2017 at 17:16, Rick Martin  wrote:
>
> I am under pressure to consider third party maintenance providers for our 
> significant Cisco inventory, and I am quite leery of such an arrangement.  I 
> suppose third party maintenance may be OK for products that we have plenty of 
> spare inventory for such as customer edge routers or switches but the bigger 
> core, aggregation or data center devices that provide critical services I 
> have great concern. Our normal policy is to keep OEM maintenance in the 
> following order;
>
> 1. Critical Devices which includes core routing, aggregation devices, data 
> center hardware and larger building routers - 24X7X4 hour RMA (Smartnet 
> Premium)
> 2. Customer edge devices - 8X5XNBD (Smartnet)
>
> That methodology applies to Cisco and Juniper hardware.
>
> So my question is - do any of you that have larger enterprise or service 
> provider networks currently utilize third party (Non OEM) maintenance 
> contracts? If so what has been your experience with them? Or do you stick 
> strictly to OEM maintenance?
>
> Thanks in advance for any input.

So I think you are talking mainly about hardware here. The usual "your
requirements are not my requirements" rules apply but in general we
have a mix and that works well for us.

From the software side we have TAC support from all our various
vendors so we can call them up 24x7x365 to look at an issue we can't
fix (maybe it’s a bug, change in behaviour between firmware versions,
undocumented feature etc). That is crucial.

But for the hardware side we have "on site" spares (for us this means
spares stores spread out across the UK) and we use a 3rd party company
(we actually own them but that doesn't mean a delivery van is less
likely to crash en route).

It’s fucking expensive to have fully loaded ASR9000 chassis just
sitting around in a cupboard ready to go. It’s cheap to have little
access layer switches, CPEs, SFPs, blades, UPS's whatever in your
cupboard. So we keep spares of the lower end kit within arm's reach
(i.e. we can have it on site from our nearest stores location within
the SLA we promised to our customers). If we need an MX960 chassis
fully loaded we call our hardware supplier. We have a contract with
them for X kit anywhere in the UK with in Y hours. Z kit which is less
important is guaranteed onsite in Y*2 hours, and so on.

So it works for us and it could work for you. You need to weigh up the
variables of what have you promised to your customers, what can the
OEM supplier offer to you, what are the possible failure scenarios
that would stop them making their SLA? If your one and only core
router goes bang, and their store is 2 hours away, and they get 1h59
minutes from you with the replacement and crash the van into a lake
and the replacement is wrecked, can you wait another 2h's?

Cheers,
James.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Tabo Topic? Third party Maintenance

[adamv0025]

> Simon Lockhart
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 8:09 AM
> 
> On Tue Jan 24, 2017 at 09:02:18AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 07:33:08PM -0500, Charles Sprickman via
cisco-nsp
> wrote:
> > > I have to say, I haven???t been impressed with their support in a
> > > long time.  We have smartnet really just for hardware, and recently
> > > I figured that since we have support, I???d actually try and offload
> > > a task that I hate - picking a stable version of IOS that has all
> > > the security issues resolved.
> >
> > Bwahahaha.  Sorry.
> 
> We were also told that if we wanted Cisco to do a 'bug scrub', to see if
we
> would be affected by any known bugs, then they offer this as a seperately
> chargeable service. Yes, really, they want us to pay them more money to
find
> out how buggy their code releases are...
> 
How it works is you provide vendor with the desired target release, configs
from all your boxes (or a representative sample), network topology diagram
and a list of bugs you've been hit by, they will populate a huge list of all
SW features and HW with stuff you are using and will ask you to fill in what
features or HW you plan on using in the future. Once all these inputs are
crosschecked and agreed, vendor will run the info against the internal bug
database and will produce a huge list of bugs you might hit using the
features and HW listed (so you better be sure you want a feature when
filling the form cause every item is a potential for a long list of bugs you
need to review). The items in the list are listed based on the bug severity
and likelihood of running into it (-but vendor's opinion on
severity/likelihood might/will differ from yours so you better check every
bug anyways). You have a dedicated engineer with wom you can discuss details
of any of the bugs listed in order to make a more informed decision.
Based on the produced list vendor either says the desired code version is ok
or will recommend another one for which an incremental bug scrub is done
(free of charge of course).
You can also veto their decision, if you think some of the bugs are
showstoppers, and ask for an incremental bug scrub for another version of
code.

It's a long and tedious process and it costs a small fortune, but I think
it's worth it.
At least you get a more detailed map of the minefield. 

adam 

netconsultings.com
::carrier-class solutions for the telecommunications industry::


___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Tabo Topic? Third party Maintenance

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 08:08:43AM +, Simon Lockhart wrote:
> Yes, really, they want us to pay them more money to find 
> out how buggy their code releases are...

When I was young and naive, too many years ago, I wondered why I would have
to pay Vendors to be able to report their bugs to them and get them fixed,
while the open source community usually was quite happy to be told about
bugs in their code...

Now I'm much older and do not ask questions anymore...  (and I'm more
realistic concerning available manpower, code testing complexity, feature
combinatoric explosions, and internal politics :-) ).

gert
-- 
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
   //www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Tabo Topic? Third party Maintenance

[Simon Lockhart]

On Tue Jan 24, 2017 at 09:02:18AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 07:33:08PM -0500, Charles Sprickman via cisco-nsp 
> wrote:
> > I have to say, I haven???t been impressed with their support in a long
> > time.  We have smartnet really just for hardware, and recently I figured
> > that since we have support, I???d actually try and offload a task that I
> > hate - picking a stable version of IOS that has all the security issues
> > resolved.
> 
> Bwahahaha.  Sorry.  

Quite :)

Recommending software versions is one thing TAC cannot do - either by policy,
or by demonstrated skillset.

We did a big upgrade programme on some Cisco devices over the Christmas period
to fix a number of bugs that had been raised to TAC. We upgraded to the version
that TAC recommended to fix these bugs. We hit other bugs after the upgrade. We
spoke to our Cisco SE about this, and he instantly responded to say that TAC
should never have recommended that particular version, and that it's documented
on CCO which version we should have used.

We were also told that if we wanted Cisco to do a 'bug scrub', to see if we
would be affected by any known bugs, then they offer this as a seperately
chargeable service. Yes, really, they want us to pay them more money to find 
out how buggy their code releases are...

Simon
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Tabo Topic? Third party Maintenance

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 07:33:08PM -0500, Charles Sprickman via cisco-nsp wrote:
> I have to say, I haven???t been impressed with their support in a long
> time.  We have smartnet really just for hardware, and recently I figured
> that since we have support, I???d actually try and offload a task that I
> hate - picking a stable version of IOS that has all the security issues
> resolved.

Bwahahaha.  Sorry.  

No, *that* you need special magic dust advanced consulting for.

Nobody inside Cisco knows whether any IOS version is stable, or has all
the features you want (plus support for all the hardware you have) at the
same time.

(Just answering the question "which series of cat 2xxx switches are 
vulnerable to the recent L2 loop bug - CSCuu69332, CSCut92591?" was
near to impossible already, and that should have been fairly easy to 
figure out - "is it a software or hardware issue, which features does 
it relate to, these are included in ", but what we got was... not helpful)

gert

-- 
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
   //www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Tabo Topic? Third party Maintenance

[Charles Sprickman via cisco-nsp]

--- Begin Message ---

> On Jan 23, 2017, at 3:05 PM, Jared Mauch  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 02:28:37PM -0500, Shawn L wrote:
>> I guess it all depends on what you utilize support for.  We tend to have
>> in-house spares, etc. that we can swap in in the event of a failure.  But,
>> there are times when you need to talk to someone at TAC to get the bottom
>> of an issue.
> 
>   These types of issues if not solved by the obligatory
> upgrade to the latest software are the big value of direct vendor support.
> 
>   If you're doing vanilla IP routing features (and I do mean that,
> anything that says MPLS/VPN/VRF, etc.. are not vanilla) you should be fine.
> 
>   If you have anything more complex, don't expect it to be easy.
> They presume you're doing it wrong, and you must be open to that as a
> concept.  Remember the KISS principle.

I have to say, I haven’t been impressed with their support in a long
time.  We have smartnet really just for hardware, and recently I figured
that since we have support, I’d actually try and offload a task that I
hate - picking a stable version of IOS that has all the security issues
resolved.

It was really frustrating.  I just wanted to say that "I run this
hardware, these modules, and we rely strongly on features A, B and C and
I don’t want to upgrade until there’s another security issue, what
should I run?” - and that was just too much to ask.  I just ended up in
some offshore bottom-tier support loop.  The guy would email me a
suggestion which was some bleeding-edge version, I’d say again that I
want a long term support release and I don’t do anything fancy, then
he’d send me essentially the same suggestion.  I stopped replying and
then must have triggered some “customer happiness engineer” to chime in,
also overseas and useless, but good at spamming me in an attempt to
close out the ticket.

Total crap, IMHO.  I mean, I could use the software navigator to find
*A* release that’s appropriate for my hardware, I wanted someone that
knows more than I do to steer me in the right direction.  This concept
seemed totally foreign to these guys.  I’m sure if you’re
all-networking, all-cisco all the time (I’m not), there’s some way
through this maze, but damn.

Charles

> 
>   - Jared
> 
> -- 
> Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from ja...@puck.nether.net
> clue++;  | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.
> ___
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

--- End Message ---
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Tabo Topic? Third party Maintenance

[Phil Mayers]

On 23/01/2017 17:16, Rick Martin wrote:


I am under pressure to consider third party maintenance providers for
our significant Cisco inventory, and I am quite leery of such an
arrangement.  I suppose third party maintenance may be OK for


Ask yourself a couple of things:

 1. Do you make use of the additional value of vendor maintenance over 
3rd party to a level that justifies the price difference?


 2. Have you correctly costed in the intangibles involved in accessing 
that additional value?


For hardware on common parts I would say there is likely to be no 
additional value. Sparing cat3/4/6k or n9k/UCS hardware is easy.


For rarer hardware you would want good guarantees that they are actually 
warehousing spares. I have seen more than one occurence of that not 
happening and biting people.


On Cisco RMAs - I have noticed a distinct trend in Cisco over the last 
few years to fail to deliver on NBD RMA. They seem to often breach the 
15:00 deadline to declare it an RMA, in most case as a result of their 
actions. One assumes this isn't deliberate, but it is very annoying.


However, software is the real issue. As I'm sure you're aware, opening a 
software bug TAC case and driving it to completion can consume tens, 
sometimes hundreds of hours of your time. Ask yourself how often, given 
the size of your custom to Cisco, those fixes are going to be made in a 
time that is worth paying for, and how often your reporting it was the 
deciding factor.


I have historically been a proponent of vendor maintenance for software 
bugs, but we've used 3rd party maintenance - usually backed by the 
vendor at 3/4th tier - without problem on other platforms. They have 
found and fixed bugs at least as well as Cisco have. I would imagine a 
Cisco gold partner would be able to feed bugs into TAC just as well as 
you would directly.


Obviously you need software *upgrade* rights, always and every time on 
every platform I would argue.


In short - is the hassle & benefit of TAC access really worth it based 
on your previous experience? If so, go Cisco.


Cheers,
Phil
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Tabo Topic? Third party Maintenance

[Catalin Dominte]

>From the support side I always advise my customers to also get support from 
>the vendor. Almost all issues are down to software problems, bar a select few 
>where the problem is either a typo or lack of planning and understanding the 
>requirements. 

Access to support from vendor is essential but having spares is really good 
practice too. Not sure on your experience but I am yet to find a company that 
manages to actually replace a multi-chassis router within 4 hours! Or a 1U 
switch for that matter!

I do subscribe to the KISS principle as well! And accurate documentation on top 
of KISS!

My 2p!

Catalin
Nocsult Ltd
Unified Network Management Solutions

Sent from my mobile device

> On 23 Jan 2017, at 20:05, Jared Mauch  wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 02:28:37PM -0500, Shawn L wrote:
>> I guess it all depends on what you utilize support for.  We tend to have
>> in-house spares, etc. that we can swap in in the event of a failure.  But,
>> there are times when you need to talk to someone at TAC to get the bottom
>> of an issue.
> 
>These types of issues if not solved by the obligatory
> upgrade to the latest software are the big value of direct vendor support.
> 
>If you're doing vanilla IP routing features (and I do mean that,
> anything that says MPLS/VPN/VRF, etc.. are not vanilla) you should be fine.
> 
>If you have anything more complex, don't expect it to be easy.
> They presume you're doing it wrong, and you must be open to that as a
> concept.  Remember the KISS principle.
> 
>- Jared
> 
> -- 
> Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from ja...@puck.nether.net
> clue++;  | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.
> ___
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Tabo Topic? Third party Maintenance

[Jared Mauch]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 02:28:37PM -0500, Shawn L wrote:
> I guess it all depends on what you utilize support for.  We tend to have
> in-house spares, etc. that we can swap in in the event of a failure.  But,
> there are times when you need to talk to someone at TAC to get the bottom
> of an issue.

These types of issues if not solved by the obligatory
upgrade to the latest software are the big value of direct vendor support.

If you're doing vanilla IP routing features (and I do mean that,
anything that says MPLS/VPN/VRF, etc.. are not vanilla) you should be fine.

If you have anything more complex, don't expect it to be easy.
They presume you're doing it wrong, and you must be open to that as a
concept.  Remember the KISS principle.

- Jared

-- 
Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from ja...@puck.nether.net
clue++;  | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Tabo Topic? Third party Maintenance

[Eli Kagan via cisco-nsp]

--- Begin Message ---
Not sure whether this is helping or not Rick, but I have used Dimension Data 
maintenance before. They would sell you a straight SmartNet contract or their 
own in-house maintenance, which might or might not be backed by Cisco. I bought 
the former for less common equipment like large switches as it was cheaper than 
their in-house contracts. I bought their in-house maintenance for anything 
smallish as it was half the price of Cisco's. As for most common parts like 
switches, I kept spares on site wherever possible and do without a maintenance. 
This might not work for you if you are under compliance regulations that 
require such contracts. As for their service, I had no complaints but no 
praises either. It works, but you need to keep in mind that you are dealing 
with a huge company.



Cheers,Eli

  From: Rick Martin <rick.mar...@arkansas.gov>
 To: "cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net" <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net> 
 Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 12:16 PM
 Subject: [c-nsp] Tabo Topic? Third party Maintenance
  

I am under pressure to consider third party maintenance providers for our 
significant Cisco inventory, and I am quite leery of such an arrangement.  I 
suppose third party maintenance may be OK for products that we have plenty of 
spare inventory for such as customer edge routers or switches but the bigger 
core, aggregation or data center devices that provide critical services I have 
great concern. Our normal policy is to keep OEM maintenance in the following 
order;

1. Critical Devices which includes core routing, aggregation devices, data 
center hardware and larger building routers - 24X7X4 hour RMA (Smartnet Premium)
2. Customer edge devices - 8X5XNBD (Smartnet)

That methodology applies to Cisco and Juniper hardware. 

So my question is - do any of you that have larger enterprise or service 
provider networks currently utilize third party (Non OEM) maintenance 
contracts? If so what has been your experience with them? Or do you stick 
strictly to OEM maintenance?

Thanks in advance for any input.

Rick Martin
Network Architect
State of Arkansas, Department of Information Systems
(501) 682-4037

___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/


   

   --- End Message ---
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Tabo Topic? Third party Maintenance

[Shawn L]

I guess it all depends on what you utilize support for.  We tend to have
in-house spares, etc. that we can swap in in the event of a failure.  But,
there are times when you need to talk to someone at TAC to get the bottom
of an issue.



On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Jared Mauch  wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 05:16:01PM +, Rick Martin wrote:
> >
> > I am under pressure to consider third party maintenance providers for
> our significant Cisco inventory, and I am quite leery of such an
> arrangement.  I suppose third party maintenance may be OK for products that
> we have plenty of spare inventory for such as customer edge routers or
> switches but the bigger core, aggregation or data center devices that
> provide critical services I have great concern. Our normal policy is to
> keep OEM maintenance in the following order;
> >
> > 1. Critical Devices which includes core routing, aggregation devices,
> data center hardware and larger building routers - 24X7X4 hour RMA
> (Smartnet Premium)
> > 2. Customer edge devices - 8X5XNBD (Smartnet)
> >
> > That methodology applies to Cisco and Juniper hardware.
> >
> > So my question is - do any of you that have larger enterprise or service
> provider networks currently utilize third party (Non OEM) maintenance
> contracts? If so what has been your experience with them? Or do you stick
> strictly to OEM maintenance?
>
> If you purchase your own spares, you can often make due with a
> return to factory
> model of parts replacement.  They will return you a new/refurbished part
> about
> 10 days after receipt of the failed one.
>
> Much of this depends on the commonality of the parts, any logistics
> you or a partner may have in providing that yourself.  Of course this
> depends
> on the ability to triage yourself.  I've generally not had any issues with
> a
> vendor when we say it failed, we swapped with spare, here's the serial.
>
> - Jared
>
>
> --
> Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from ja...@puck.nether.net
> clue++;  | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only
> mine.
> ___
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Re: [c-nsp] Tabo Topic? Third party Maintenance

[Jared Mauch]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 05:16:01PM +, Rick Martin wrote:
> 
> I am under pressure to consider third party maintenance providers for our 
> significant Cisco inventory, and I am quite leery of such an arrangement.  I 
> suppose third party maintenance may be OK for products that we have plenty of 
> spare inventory for such as customer edge routers or switches but the bigger 
> core, aggregation or data center devices that provide critical services I 
> have great concern. Our normal policy is to keep OEM maintenance in the 
> following order;
> 
> 1. Critical Devices which includes core routing, aggregation devices, data 
> center hardware and larger building routers - 24X7X4 hour RMA (Smartnet 
> Premium)
> 2. Customer edge devices - 8X5XNBD (Smartnet)
> 
> That methodology applies to Cisco and Juniper hardware. 
> 
> So my question is - do any of you that have larger enterprise or service 
> provider networks currently utilize third party (Non OEM) maintenance 
> contracts? If so what has been your experience with them? Or do you stick 
> strictly to OEM maintenance?

If you purchase your own spares, you can often make due with a return 
to factory
model of parts replacement.  They will return you a new/refurbished part about
10 days after receipt of the failed one.

Much of this depends on the commonality of the parts, any logistics 
you or a partner may have in providing that yourself.  Of course this depends
on the ability to triage yourself.  I've generally not had any issues with a
vendor when we say it failed, we swapped with spare, here's the serial.

- Jared


-- 
Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from ja...@puck.nether.net
clue++;  | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.
___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

[c-nsp] Tabo Topic? Third party Maintenance

[Rick Martin]

I am under pressure to consider third party maintenance providers for our 
significant Cisco inventory, and I am quite leery of such an arrangement.  I 
suppose third party maintenance may be OK for products that we have plenty of 
spare inventory for such as customer edge routers or switches but the bigger 
core, aggregation or data center devices that provide critical services I have 
great concern. Our normal policy is to keep OEM maintenance in the following 
order;

1. Critical Devices which includes core routing, aggregation devices, data 
center hardware and larger building routers - 24X7X4 hour RMA (Smartnet Premium)
2. Customer edge devices - 8X5XNBD (Smartnet)

That methodology applies to Cisco and Juniper hardware. 

So my question is - do any of you that have larger enterprise or service 
provider networks currently utilize third party (Non OEM) maintenance 
contracts? If so what has been your experience with them? Or do you stick 
strictly to OEM maintenance?

Thanks in advance for any input.

Rick Martin
Network Architect
State of Arkansas, Department of Information Systems
(501) 682-4037

___
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/