[c-nsp] ME6524 alternative

[Mark Tinka]

On Wednesday 23 July 2008 03:26:26 Justin Shore wrote:

> What I was told was that it was an "unintended feature". 
> Basically that means that while it worked it wasn't ever
> part of the intended design and wasn't ever tested.  It
> could have adverse affects on other things; then again it
> also might not affect anything.  They simply wouldn't
> know unless they incorporated that into the QA procedures
> and there has to be demand for that to happen.  So tell
> your account team every chance you get.  In fact I would
> recommend having your account team hook you up on a call
> with the product manager responsible for BFD support on
> your hardware and ask for it yourself (because often
> times I think requests like that tend to get overlooked).

It's been a couple of weeks since I bugged our account team 
for it.

Perhaps I should send another reminder :-)...

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20080723/c896adcf/attachment.bin>