[c-nsp] Crash bug in SXH3

[Sami Joseph]

I've worked with different vendors "TAC"/Support and it would be fair to
admit that there is a world of difference between the support i get from
Cisco and other vendors. Within TAC information is openly shared and comes
in quickly whether its a bug or else, while with others, i will have to wait
till they check with everyone including the account managers before coming
back to me with news that i have a bug.

Yet sometimes there are some TAC engineers that prefer to walk the easy path
and RMA the hardware but that never rarely happens on a Severity 1/2 cases
and i can change how the case is going if my tone changes.

I cant resist the urge to say their names, so please go ahead and try Huawei
or Alcatle-lucent support and you'll be sending roses to TAC after each
case.

My final note, everyone receives a survey after each case and trust me, your
comments shall improve their service as i have had an incident where my bad
survery turned things around, so i know that those surveys are read and
acted upon.

~Joost

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 6:35 PM, Hank Nussbacher <hank at efes.iucc.ac.il>wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Phil Mayers wrote:
>
>  Bård Dahlmo wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 7 Aug 2008, Phil Mayers wrote:
>>>
>>>  Just a warning, there is a fatal crash bug in SXH3 related to using SCP.
>>>> Considering the release notes claim fixes in that very area, this is highly
>>>> amusing (note: issue may not actually be amusing)
>>>>
>>>
>>> CSCsr86489
>>>
>>>
>> Nice. TAC case has been open 4 days now, and I've had no reply.
>>
>
> I have found cisco-nsp far more useful than TAC.  Only 1 out of every 3 TAC
> cases do I get value for my money.  Otherwise it is either "not my job,
> man", or "working as designed", etc.
>
> -Hank
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>