[c-nsp] smoke and condensation damage to routers

[Ian McDonald]

> 
> My worst judgement call is a pair of ASA5580-40's in the original 
> packaging 1 floor down from the
> fire.  They were inside a plastic bag inside a box on a pallet.  The box 
> is dry.
> Some condensation was noticed inside the plastic bag when it was opened up.
> 
>  From my standpoint I don't want to trust any of this gear in 
> production.  Of course, the insurance
> adjustor sees gear that appears undamaged and is now completely dry.
> 
> Anyone have experience running gear that was subjected to smoke, and 
> possibly some
> condensation?  Did it result in abnormal outages in the future?
> 
> Darrell Root
> ciscotraining at mac.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
> 

Darrell,

We recently had a flood in a comms room, and our loss-adjuster stated 
that even if we were to dry the equipment out, it might have been 
subjected to conditions outside the manufacturers guidelines (though we 
had no way of knowing).

His position was that if there were to be a fire, or accident (electric 
shock or the like) caused by the equipment in the future, the insurance 
company would be potentially legally responsible. His only way to 
establish if the equipment was now safe for reuse would be to have the 
manufacturer re-test, and re-certify the equipment as safe (thus moving 
the burden back to the manufacturer).

His position on re-testing was that it was likely to be more hassle, and 
more expensive than simply writing the kit off (particularly with our 
edu discount). Hence the equipment in the room was written off, and 
replaced, even though it was only a few months old.

I'd ask the loss adjuster to produce you paperwork certifying it as 
undamaged and safe for use, signed by a director of his company, if they 
refuse to see sense. Even they ought to be able to see the legal 
implications of one catching fire or electrocuting an engineer in a 
month's time, especially in today's litigious world.

-- 
ian