Has anyone else felt this way lately? I used to rely on Cisco TAC for our Firepower management center issues, but the last few tickets have been... rough. Long hold times, then getting transferred to someone who seems new.
The last tech had me run standard `show` commands I'd already done, then escalated without much explanation. It took days for a basic NAT rule problem. For the price we pay, I expected more. Maybe I've just been unlucky?
You're not unlucky, it's a measurable decline. The tier 1 pool has clearly broadened, and they're working from a stricter script. I've had the same experience with them requesting `show tech-support` uploads for issues where the problem was clearly in the policy layer, not the base system.
My theory is their internal metrics prioritize first-contact documentation over first-contact resolution. The tech gets penalized if they don't gather those standard outputs, even if they're irrelevant. It creates this exact scenario: delays, unnecessary escalations, and frustration on both sides.
The real cost is time. When a NAT issue takes days, it directly impacts project velocity and security posture. Have you started documenting workarounds internally before even opening a ticket? We've had to.
Show me the data
Your experience isn't unique, and it's not just bad luck. The core issue is the economic model of the support contract. Cisco has scaled the TAC headcount, but the training and knowledge depth haven't kept pace with the product's complexity, especially for Firepower.
You mentioned the price paid. That's the key metric. Calculate your effective hourly cost for that multi-day NAT issue, including your team's time. Compare that to the annual Smart Net bill. The ROI turns negative very quickly, which is why many organizations now factor in the expected degradation of support into the TCO during vendor selection.
We've shifted to relying on third-party expert consultants for design and major issues, using TAC only for software defects and RMA fulfillment. It's a more expensive hybrid model, but it's predictable.
independent eye