[c-nsp] Acceptance Test Procedure for New Cisco Devices

Tue Jan 20 09:36:59 EST 2009

Thank you all guys for your answers!
I think Phil has hit the nail and gave me an idea about what I was looking for, anything more thorough than this will be a waste of time in our case and unnecessary long.
But I guess we'll finally opt for letting the Cisco QA be enough as a guarantee the devices work (there's always RMA) and have Alex's suggestion be the winner here, just be as nebulous as you can and follow the "ill-defined and metaphysical characteristique" of such undefined term as "Acceptance Test Procedure"
I'd ask the customer:
Are you married? Did you fill an ATP form before you said "Yes, I do" ??? No??? Then c'mon, gimme a break!!! It's just a darn router we're talking here, not chaining your entire life with the same woman!!
A router can be replaced when malfunctioning, with a wife it's a bit more difficult, isn't it??
Thak you all again!
Ziv

-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Balashov [mailto:abalashov at evaristesys.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 3:38 PM
To: Ziv Leyes
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Acceptance Test Procedure for New Cisco Devices

But if it's attached to a legal statement, the more nebulous and elastic 
(aka BS) it is the more protection you have from incurring liability for 
actually having done or not done something.

That gets easier when the "acceptance testing process" is ill-defined 
and metaphysical, not harder.

Ziv Leyes wrote:

> Ok, let me be more specific
> When we buy devices for our own use, we just open it, plug it, and start using them, if there are any problems, we call the provider and they fix the problem (RMA or whatever)
> In this case, we're going to sell the equipment as a kind of turn-key project, and the customer asked us to provide them with "our" ATP, which we don't really use for ourselves, so I'd like to implement one sort of testing procedure from now on for this type of cases. We're going to attach this to a legal statement so we can't just type some BS there and that's it, we want to actually implement it, and if we write we do a,b,c,d then we'll going to do a,b,c,d procedure for real.
> I was thinking some of you guys may already use this kind of test routines and can help me creating one.
> I don't need some really serious stuff, I can imagine I'll check the delivery status of the package, open it, check all the contents that need to be there are there, to plug the device and see it works, perhaps load some configuration, plug the hardware that is planned to hold if any (HWICS and so), perform some soft and hard reboots, see the device responds, there are links on all interfaces, and pack it back exactly as it was.
> The problem is I don't know how exactly write it down on a kind of form that there's a checkbox for each test.
> Does anybody have some ready to go stuff?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Rathlev [mailto:peter at rathlev.dk] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 1:31 PM
> To: Ziv Leyes
> Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Acceptance Test Procedure for New Cisco Devices
> 
> On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 12:13 +0200, Ziv Leyes wrote:
>> Could anyone share if possible a kind of basic ATP you may use for new
>> Cisco devices that you may receive?
>> I'm in need of providing a customer with such procedure for two new
>> devices, a Cisco 1861 router and a Cisco ASA5510
> 
> Is it just the hardware that needs to be acceptance tested or is it some
> kind of service depending on this hardware? I don't specifically recall
> the term "ATP" but I guess Operational Acceptance Testing is the same.
> 
> We only supply services, and the acceptance tests are defined by the
> receiving end, typically with some help from a Service Manager and a
> network engineer. The tests only check functionality not endurance of
> the system. Typically the tests check everything defined in the SLA.
> 
> When receiving hardware we use for ourselves we have no formal
> acceptance tests; for core equipment it runs in a lab for some time and
> the takes on a role as a standby unit in the production net. Sometimes
> when time limits dictate it we end up just placing some new component in
> an important role without testing. I hope the manufacturer does some
> kind of burn in test. :-)
> 
> HTH,
> Peter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
>  
> ************************************************************************************
> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses.
> ************************************************************************************
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
>  
> ************************************************************************************
> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses.
> ************************************************************************************
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/

-- 
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web    : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel    : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (678) 237-1775

************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses.
************************************************************************************