Can anyone comment on Cisco 6509E Smartnet "chassis" coverage? In the past, "chassis" has always meant, not just the passive chassis itself, but all of the components including supervisor cards, line cards, power supplies, fan trays, etc. Now it appears that Cisco is requiring Smartnet coverage on line cards in addition to the chassis. My understanding is that Smartnet functioned much like insurance policies, where Cisco collected maintenance contract fees year after year, but the devices were generally so reliable that the collected Smartnet fees always far exceeded the dollar amount required to replace failed components. Regards, David
I'd say hardware replacement is only a small benefit of smartnet, or I would have found it more economical to just stock spares a long time ago. You also received technical support in addition to software updates. In fact, IMHO, the greatest benefit is the access to Cisco development resources for both defect resolution and software updates. In fact, I see little value in continued smartnet past last date of software development, and that typically is my cancellation date well before end of life. Besides, between that date and EOL, chances are stocking spares is dirt cheap and you little other benefit... On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:02 PM, david peahi <davidpeahi@gmail.com> wrote:
Can anyone comment on Cisco 6509E Smartnet "chassis" coverage? In the past, "chassis" has always meant, not just the passive chassis itself, but all of the components including supervisor cards, line cards, power supplies, fan trays, etc. Now it appears that Cisco is requiring Smartnet coverage on line cards in addition to the chassis. My understanding is that Smartnet functioned much like insurance policies, where Cisco collected maintenance contract fees year after year, but the devices were generally so reliable that the collected Smartnet fees always far exceeded the dollar amount required to replace failed components.
Regards,
David
Can anyone comment on Cisco 6509E Smartnet "chassis" coverage? In the
"chassis" has always meant, not just the passive chassis itself, but all of the components including supervisor cards, line cards, power supplies, fan trays, etc. Now it appears that Cisco is requiring Smartnet coverage on line cards in addition to the chassis. My understanding is that Smartnet functioned much like insurance
where Cisco collected maintenance contract fees year after year, but
I have found that SmartNet is good for only "software" updates in certain gear. 3rd party maintenance is MUCH cheaper when regarding to "6500" gear as it is NOT a distributed architecture as the 12000 series. IMHO Larz -----Original Message----- From: PC [mailto:paul4004@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:29 AM To: david peahi Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Cisco Smartnet for 6509E Line Cards I'd say hardware replacement is only a small benefit of smartnet, or I would have found it more economical to just stock spares a long time ago. You also received technical support in addition to software updates. In fact, IMHO, the greatest benefit is the access to Cisco development resources for both defect resolution and software updates. In fact, I see little value in continued smartnet past last date of software development, and that typically is my cancellation date well before end of life. Besides, between that date and EOL, chances are stocking spares is dirt cheap and you little other benefit... On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:02 PM, david peahi <davidpeahi@gmail.com> wrote: past, policies, the
devices were generally so reliable that the collected Smartnet fees always far exceeded the dollar amount required to replace failed components.
Regards,
David
That is the way I understood it in the past but: I recently priced a new 10G blade for our 6509 and was quoted Smartnet for it. I asked about if it was covered under the chassis Smartnet and was told that line cards were not covered. I do know that I have replaced the supervisor card before under the Smartnet contract on the chassis. My understanding now is that the chassis, supervisor card, fan trays, and power supplies are covered by the chassis Smarnet. Any line cards added need to be covered with their own Smartnet contract. If anyone knows better, please let us (me in particular) know. I work in the K-12 educational market and right now the Smarnet on the chassis runs about 30% of what the chassis costs (bare chassis without sup, fans, and power supplies). If the sup, fan trays and powers supplies are not covered then that is a steep price to pay for a bare chassis. I could buy another chassis and put on the shelf and it would be cheaper since the chassis itself would have to be abused badly to need replacing. If the chassis, supervisor, fans, and power supplies are covered under the chassis contract then the pricing on the chassis contract makes sense. Curtis -----Original Message----- From: david peahi [mailto:davidpeahi@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 12:02 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Cisco Smartnet for 6509E Line Cards Can anyone comment on Cisco 6509E Smartnet "chassis" coverage? In the past, "chassis" has always meant, not just the passive chassis itself, but all of the components including supervisor cards, line cards, power supplies, fan trays, etc. Now it appears that Cisco is requiring Smartnet coverage on line cards in addition to the chassis. My understanding is that Smartnet functioned much like insurance policies, where Cisco collected maintenance contract fees year after year, but the devices were generally so reliable that the collected Smartnet fees always far exceeded the dollar amount required to replace failed components. Regards, David
This is also the way I have understood "chassis" Smartnet in the past, that is that line cards have always been covered, and in my career, Cisco has always replaced (RMA'd) failed line cards of any kind no questions asked. This seems to be a new Cisco policy, quoting Smartnet for line cards. Does anyone know if companies like Arista, which advocate "merchant silicon" for their Ethernet switches, have a one price support contract for the "whole ball of wax" if a component fails in their switches? Regards, David On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:26 AM, STARNES, CURTIS < Curtis.Starnes@granburyisd.org> wrote:
That is the way I understood it in the past but: I recently priced a new 10G blade for our 6509 and was quoted Smartnet for it. I asked about if it was covered under the chassis Smartnet and was told that line cards were not covered. I do know that I have replaced the supervisor card before under the Smartnet contract on the chassis. My understanding now is that the chassis, supervisor card, fan trays, and power supplies are covered by the chassis Smarnet. Any line cards added need to be covered with their own Smartnet contract.
If anyone knows better, please let us (me in particular) know. I work in the K-12 educational market and right now the Smarnet on the chassis runs about 30% of what the chassis costs (bare chassis without sup, fans, and power supplies). If the sup, fan trays and powers supplies are not covered then that is a steep price to pay for a bare chassis. I could buy another chassis and put on the shelf and it would be cheaper since the chassis itself would have to be abused badly to need replacing.
If the chassis, supervisor, fans, and power supplies are covered under the chassis contract then the pricing on the chassis contract makes sense.
Curtis
-----Original Message----- From: david peahi [mailto:davidpeahi@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 12:02 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Cisco Smartnet for 6509E Line Cards
Can anyone comment on Cisco 6509E Smartnet "chassis" coverage? In the past, "chassis" has always meant, not just the passive chassis itself, but all of the components including supervisor cards, line cards, power supplies, fan trays, etc. Now it appears that Cisco is requiring Smartnet coverage on line cards in addition to the chassis. My understanding is that Smartnet functioned much like insurance policies, where Cisco collected maintenance contract fees year after year, but the devices were generally so reliable that the collected Smartnet fees always far exceeded the dollar amount required to replace failed components.
Regards,
David
participants (4)
-
david peahi -
Larry May -
PC -
STARNES, CURTIS