[c-nsp] Fake Cisco Equipment News Articles - very interesting

[Peter Rathlev]

On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 22:43 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
<snip>
> People post on this list every day of problems they are having with Cisco
> equipment, then proceed to lambast various Cisco IOS revisions for breaking
> things.  Well, how do I know that when someone reports X.Y.Z version of IOS
> is bad because it's making my router reboot all the time, that their
> router's not rebooting all the time because it's counterfeit?  I don't.  So,
> am I going to then base my decisions on whether to deploy X.Y.Z based on bad
> data?  Are you?  Are you happy doing this?
> 
> If not, then shut up about the so-called "political counterfeiting"
> discussion.  This is most definitely on topic.

Easy there, I was just asking whether people thought it was on topic. I
didn't say that I disagree about what you explain, just that it tends
towards politics, and that I personally think that politics shouldn't be
a part of C-NSP. There are other forums for that. I really can't see why
you have to ask me to "shut up", but since you insist, I will find
another place to hang out.

As a bootnote: I agree about the fact that Cisco has some explaining to
do about this issue. We have had customers who had to stop using some
functioning GBICs, simply because Cisco decided that these *3Com* GBICs
where "counterfeit". I know the "service usupported-transceiver" can get
around this, but that's a little like wearing a T-shirt saying "I'm
criminal". If a box explodes and there's a 3Com GBIC in it, then that's
to blame according to Cisco TAC.

I'll leave it to you guys from here. It was nice while it lasted. :-)

Regards,
Peter