Ascend Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (ASCEND) Quiescenting PRIs
At 09:28 PM 1/26/98 -0500, Shawn Lewis wrote:
>Jason:
>
>I concur 100%, Stuart has added the "value" that helped
>XCOM when making its decision. As a carrier, it was important
>to be able to address issues, and get them resolved in a
>timely and "efficient" fashion. Stuart adds that stability
>to the engineering effort at Ascend.
>
>My frustration rose when one of my Sr people questioned
>the actual "working" of the quiesce, and I see a response
>that "hey it works" from Ascend, when in fact it DOES NOT.
I have to concur. We had a situation today where we actually
needed this function, and it failed us miserably. It's painful
to blame Ascend to your customers when in fact they do not
really care, they care about stability period. Frankly, they've
heard it's "a bug" for many items for awhile now.
To Ascends credit: I find the Sales Engineering and Management
team willing to go the extra mile for us. I've also witnessed the
Engineering people do this as well. But why go the extra mile for
every code release vs. make it right, or at least stable when it
happens?
To Ascends not so credit: Code releases are awful experiences, and
I hope they are making an effort to make it better.
Case in point, AP whatever seems to be about one rev behind current
Rockwell modem code always. Pool server hasn't worked since
AP??
Regards,
--
Martin Hannigan hannigan@xcom.net
Sr. Network Engineer CO/Carrier Networks
XCOM Technologies, INC. F:617.500.0002
V:617.500.0108
++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe: send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd: <http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>
References: