nanog mailing list archives
Re: Spanning tree melt down ?
From: "Stephen Sprunk" <ssprunk () cisco com>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 14:32:16 -0600
Thus spake "Robert A. Hayden" <rhayden () geek net>
I'm still failing to see why this required a $3M forklift of new equipment to correct the problem. Was this just Cisco sales pouncing on someone's misfortune as a way to push new stuff?
Environments with a STP diameter of 10+ are unlikely to have the necessary equipment on-hand to make a L3 campus network that adheres to current best practices. Nevertheless, it is TAC policy to get the customer the equipment that is needed to solve the problem, and Sales handles any monetary issues later after the network is stable. One might also consider if there was a campus upgrade plan already in the works and this event merely altered the timeline for implementation. S
Current thread:
- Re: Spanning tree melt down ?, (continued)
- Re: Spanning tree melt down ? Stephen Sprunk (Nov 29)
- Spanning tree melt down ? Huff, Mark (Nov 27)
- Re: Spanning tree melt down ? alex (Nov 27)
- Re: Spanning tree melt down ? Scott Granados (Nov 27)
- Re: Spanning tree melt down ? Garrett Allen (Nov 28)
- Re: Spanning tree melt down ? Simon Lyall (Nov 28)
- Re: Spanning tree melt down ? Stephen J. Wilcox (Nov 28)
- Re: Spanning tree melt down ? Robert A. Hayden (Nov 28)
- Re: Spanning tree melt down ? blitz (Nov 28)
- Re: Spanning tree melt down ? Daniel Golding (Nov 29)
- Re: Spanning tree melt down ? Stephen Sprunk (Nov 29)
- Re: Spanning tree melt down ? Marshall Eubanks (Nov 29)
- Re: Spanning tree melt down ? David Lesher (Nov 29)
- Re: Spanning tree melt down ? Scott Granados (Nov 27)
- Re: Spanning tree melt down ? Stephen Sprunk (Nov 29)
- Re: Spanning tree melt down ? Sean Donelan (Nov 27)