Cisco hardware question
Hello, I apologize if this is an unusual topic but I would like to know what this expert community thinks about this issue: We have noticed that a number of Cisco appliances we have recently purchased and paid (AS NEW), are being shipped as if they have been already used/refurbished. In other words, several times we have seen brand new Cisco hardware, out of the box, that has pre-existing configuration (Interfaces with Private IP addresses, static routes, etc …) and in some cases even non-system files, like ‘crashdump.txt’ or additional IOS images. Most importantly our latest purchase; 2 'new' ASAs, contain a series of files named: FSCK.REC, FSCK0001.REC, FSCK0002.REC, etc ... . Based on some research it seems like that these files are 'recovery files' signaling bad/failing hard disks in these appliances. Anyone on thhis group has seen this before and if yes, are we supposed to blindly trust the vendor saying the hardware is new, safe and secure? The only way I can explain this is that the hardware has been refurbished or previously configured for reasons unknown to me. I think if customers pays for new hardware, they should get new hardware, even if refurbished hardware may be covered by Smartnet. Any thoughts or recommendations anyone? The last thing we want to do is to deploy faulty (or non secure) security appliances in production. :) Thank you Best regards _ Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469228/direct/01/
RE: Cisco hardware question
Thanks for the feedback. Let me clarify a few things regarding issues that this thread has addressed so far: A) Pre-existing configs: What Tim and Joe mentioned is apparently correct. I was on phone with a few Cisco tech-reps earlier today and they told me that since version 8.2, they have been shipping ASAs with a default configuration, which explains the existence of private IP addresses on the inside interface, etc ... . B) What Cisco reps could NOT explain was the existence of a number of FSCK000#.REC files on these appliances. To be more specific each of ASAs in question contains 4 extra files: FSCK.REC, FSCK0001.REC, FSCK0002.REC, FSCK0003.REC). I said 'extra' because I asked the Cisco reps on phone to provide me a complete list of files that should exist on a brand new ASA, and the 4 files above were not part of the list and I think even they got confused when I mentioned the existence of these files. I could not find much info on these files, but a simple Google search indicates that these files may be 'recovery files' of Disks operating under Unix/Linux/BSD/etc /... kernel, indicating a dying hard drive. That would be enough to freak me out! Anyone can confirm this? C) SmarNet issue: I am a little confused on this. Since this purchase was for NEW equipment, and the devices were shipped by Cisco (at least that is what I read on the box; a Cisco warehouse in TX), then my understanding is that the devices came with the first 12 months of Smarnet anyway. So I will be surprised if they decline the contract renewal after the first year. After all they sold us the appliances as if they were new. How can decline renewal if I can prove that I paid them for new? D) Reseller: Yes, I appreciate the input. I will stick with a bigger name like CDW, next time, but again it appears to me that the devices were shipped from a Cisco warehouse in Texas, and not from the reseller's location. I would greatly appreciate any input, especially on B) Thank you Best regards > Subject: RE: Cisco hardware question > Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:27:04 -0800 > From: madc...@hisna.com > To: ken.gilm...@gmail.com > CC: nanog@nanog.org > > According to previous conversations with my Cisco rep the answer is no - > Cisco won't support it. I'm blind copying him on this and will pass on his > response. > > Thanks, > Matt > > > > From: Ken Gilmour [mailto:ken.gilm...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thu 3/4/2010 4:17 PM > To: Adcock, Matt [HISNA] > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Cisco hardware question > > > So if one were to purchase equipment, which is explicitly sold as > "Refurbished" from, say www.impulsetech.us and they were to offer Smartnet on > it, there is no guarantee that even if you paid for it, that Cisco would > fulfil their support contract? > > Regards, > > Ken > > > On 4 March 2010 15:22, Adcock, Matt [HISNA] wrote: > > > > Don't deploy the equipment, demand a refund, and report the reseller to > Cisco. I agree completely with Brian - find a good Cisco partner and stick > with them. Also, you can't legally buy used Cisco equipment and use the > operating system. You can buy the equipment but the OS is absolutely > non-transferrable. If you try to get SMARTNet on it red flags will go up and > Cisco won't support it. > > Thanks, > Matt > > > > Matt Adcock, Manager > 334-481-6629 (w) / 334-312-5393 (m) / madc...@hisna.com > 700 Hyundai Blvd. / Montgomery, AL 36105 > > P > The average office worker uses 10,000 sheets of paper = 1.2 trees, per year > By not printing this email, you've saved paper, ink and millions of trees > > > > From: Brian Feeny [mailto:bfe...@mac.com] > Sent: Thu 3/4/2010 3:05 PM > To: Kaveh . > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Cisco hardware question > > > > > > If you are getting Cisco hardware with configs on it or crashfiles, etc. Then > no it is NOT new equipment. Who are you buying from? Are they a Gold partner > on Cisco's partner locator? If not, then I have seen some seedy things, and > of course i have seen seedy things with Gold partners too, I am just pointing > out that the ability to compete and make margin get more and more difficult > the lower the partner is on the totem pole and so desperation can drive > certain behavior. > > In general from a cisco Gold partner you can expect as good as 35-40% or so > on new equipment for a discount for regular deals. Special pricing for > special projects you may be able to get a bit better, and maybe 1% or so > better for general products from CDW or a big box company like them. If you > are paying 50-60% off list for jus
RE: Cisco hardware question
Ben, Here is the output of # dir command - It includes all the files on disk0:/ ciscoasa# dir Directory of disk0:/ 134-rwx 1627545608:43:56 Jul 15 2009 asa821-k8.bin 135-rwx 1134830010:46:44 Jul 15 2009 asdm-621.bin 136-rwx 20480 00:00:00 Jan 01 1980 FSCK.REC 3 drwx 409600:03:28 Jan 01 2003 log 10 drwx 409600:03:38 Jan 01 2003 crypto_archive 11 drwx 409600:04:00 Jan 01 2003 coredumpinfo 138-rwx 61440 00:00:00 Jan 01 1980 FSCK0001.REC 139-rwx 9526560 10:43:02 Jul 15 2009 csd_3.4.1108.pkg 140drwx 409610:43:02 Jul 15 2009 sdesktop 141-rwx 2397046 10:43:04 Jul 15 2009 anyconnect-wince-ARMv4I-2.3.0254-k9.pkg 142-rwx 2648712 10:43:04 Jul 15 2009 anyconnect-win-2.3.0254-k9.pkg 143-rwx 4217694 10:43:06 Jul 15 2009 anyconnect-macosx-i386-2.3.0254-k9.pkg 144-rwx 4259411 10:43:10 Jul 15 2009 anyconnect-linux-2.3.0254-k9.pkg 145-rwx 28672 00:00:00 Jan 01 1980 FSCK0002.REC 146-rwx 409600:00:00 Jan 01 1980 FSCK0003.REC 255582208 bytes total (201719808 bytes free) Thanks > Subject: Re: Cisco hardware question > From: bc-l...@beztech.net > Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 18:23:57 -0500 > To: af...@hotmail.com; nanog@nanog.org > > > On Mar 4, 2010, at 6:16 PM, Kaveh . wrote: > > > > > Thanks for the feedback. Let me clarify a few things regarding issues that > > this thread has addressed so far: > > > > A) Pre-existing configs: What Tim and Joe mentioned is apparently correct. > > I was on phone with a few Cisco tech-reps earlier today and they told me > > that since version 8.2, they have been shipping ASAs with a default > > configuration, which explains the existence of private IP addresses on the > > inside interface, etc ... . > > > > B) What Cisco reps could NOT explain was the existence of a number of > > FSCK000#.REC files on these appliances. To be more specific each of ASAs in > > question contains 4 extra files: FSCK.REC, FSCK0001.REC, FSCK0002.REC, > > FSCK0003.REC). I said 'extra' because I asked the Cisco reps on phone to > > provide me a complete list of files that should exist on a brand new ASA, > > and the 4 files above were not part of the list and I think even they got > > confused when I mentioned the existence of these files. > > > > I could not find much info on these files, but a simple Google search > > indicates that these files may be 'recovery files' of Disks operating under > > Unix/Linux/BSD/etc /... kernel, indicating a dying hard drive. That would > > be enough to freak me out! Anyone can confirm this? > > > > C) SmarNet issue: I am a little confused on this. Since this purchase was > > for NEW equipment, and the devices were shipped by Cisco (at least that is > > what I read on the box; a Cisco warehouse in TX), then my understanding is > > that the devices came with the first 12 months of Smarnet anyway. So I will > > be surprised if they decline the contract renewal after the first year. > > After all they sold us the appliances as if they were new. How can decline > > renewal if I can prove that I paid them for new? > > > > D) Reseller: Yes, I appreciate the input. I will stick with a bigger name > > like CDW, next time, but again it appears to me that the devices were > > shipped from a Cisco warehouse in Texas, and not from the reseller's > > location. > > > > > > > > I would greatly appreciate any input, especially on B) > > > > > > > > Thank you > > > > > > > > Best regards > > > > > > > >> Subject: RE: Cisco hardware question > >> Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:27:04 -0800 > >> From: madc...@hisna.com > >> To: ken.gilm...@gmail.com > >> CC: nanog@nanog.org > >> > >> According to previous conversations with my Cisco rep the answer is no - > >> Cisco won't support it. I'm blind copying him on this and will pass on his > >> response. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Matt > >> > >> > >> > >> From: Ken Gilmour [mailto:ken.gilm...@gmail.com] > >> Sent: Thu 3/4/2010 4:17 PM > >> To: Adcock, Matt [HISNA] > >> Cc: nanog@nanog.org > >> Subject: Re: Cisco hardware question > >> > >> > >> So if one were to purchase equipment, which is explicitly sold as > >> "Refurbished" from, say www.impulsetech.us and they were to offer Smartnet > >> on it, there
