Invisible wrote:
> OK, so the company I work for is moving to a new building.
> 
> As part of the move, I thought it would be nice to buy some new gigabit 

> brand you buy. But when HQ got wind of this, they said "oh no, you must 
> buy these Cisco switches, that way they'll match what everybody else has".
> 


To be honest, it sounds like an opportunity to work with some nice 
equipment.  It will mean a bit more work for you - but that is also 
experience.  Sure, you may have to reconfigure them to be 'dumb' 
switches, but you can still play around with them and learn more 
networking fun!

To be honest, it sounds like there are a lot of frustrations at your 
work.  Pick and choose wisely which frustrations will get you all hot 
and bothered.  Otherwise you will likely be burned out and very unhappy 
all the time.

This sounds like one of those things where I would shrug my shoulders 
and say 'goodie - shiny new toy'.


Tom

Post a reply to this message

Tom Austin wrote:

> To be honest, it sounds like an opportunity to work with some nice 
> equipment.  It will mean a bit more work for you - but that is also 
> experience.  Sure, you may have to reconfigure them to be 'dumb' 
> switches, but you can still play around with them and learn more 
> networking fun!
> 
> To be honest, it sounds like there are a lot of frustrations at your 
> work.  Pick and choose wisely which frustrations will get you all hot 
> and bothered.  Otherwise you will likely be burned out and very unhappy 
> all the time.
> 
> This sounds like one of those things where I would shrug my shoulders 
> and say 'goodie - shiny new toy'.

Well, it was starting to look like I wouldn't get any new switches at 
all because the UK can't really afford Cisco gear. Since it's apparently 
now comming out of HQ's budget, that's fine.

Also, there's no possibility of reconfiguring the switches in any way. 
It will all be controlled from HQ. I will not be given the passwords 
necessary to do anything to the switches. (If it's anything like other 
Cisco devices, you need to be a Cisco specialist to actually operate it 
anyway.)

I'm not *so* worried about getting Cisco boxes as having to deal with 4 
subnets when we only need 1... But hey, hopefully I'll be leaving soon. 
And then it will be somebody else's problem...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:56:09 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> Also, there's no possibility of reconfiguring the switches in any way.
> It will all be controlled from HQ.

Huh, so they'll be available 24x7 to support any issues?  If it were me, 
I'd ask them.  Heck, the worst they can say is "yes", the best they can 
say is "gee, maybe you should learn how to operate them in case we're 
unavailable - or if the WAN is down" and you get a chance to learn about 
these things - if anything, it's fodder for the CV.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Also, there's no possibility of reconfiguring the switches in any way.
>> It will all be controlled from HQ.
> 
> Huh, so they'll be available 24x7 to support any issues?

Don't be ridiculous. ;-)

If it breaks, it's only a problem for the UK, and that's a low priority.

> If it were me, 
> I'd ask them.  Heck, the worst they can say is "yes", the best they can 
> say is "gee, maybe you should learn how to operate them in case we're 
> unavailable - or if the WAN is down" and you get a chance to learn about 
> these things - if anything, it's fodder for the CV.

Would be nice... However, based on my efforts to learn about the 
firewall configuration [which *is* nontrivial], I suspect I'll get nowhere.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 23:12:39 +0200, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> 
>> It makes the network more controllable and logical (or to be precise, it
>> makes getting the network more controllable and logical possible). And
>> it increases security, if made correctly.
> 
> I don't know that I'd go with the security angle, unless 802.11x is being 
> implemented to authenticate devices to the network.
> 
> Jim

Access-lists and mac-filtering prevents stupid users plugging open AP's
etc to the network. Yes, it's some of a PITA to maintain, if devices
change a lot, but usually they don't. And the improvement won't be massive.

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
   http://www.zbxt.net
      aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:52:07 +0200, Eero Ahonen wrote:

> Access-lists and mac-filtering prevents stupid users plugging open AP's
> etc to the network. Yes, it's some of a PITA to maintain, if devices
> change a lot, but usually they don't. And the improvement won't be
> massive.

Ah, yes, that would do it.  I was thinking along the lines of subnetting 
making things more secure, which really, it doesn't.  You get some 
additional segmentation of broadcast traffic, and it's harder to sniff 
outside the wiring closet, but in a client/server environment, most of 
the interesting traffic ends up on one subnet anyways...

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:09:04 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>>> Also, there's no possibility of reconfiguring the switches in any way.
>>> It will all be controlled from HQ.
>> 
>> Huh, so they'll be available 24x7 to support any issues?
> 
> Don't be ridiculous. ;-)
> 
> If it breaks, it's only a problem for the UK, and that's a low priority.

Perhaps before it breaks the first time, but not afterwards if my guess 
is right (which maybe it isn't).

>> If it were me,
>> I'd ask them.  Heck, the worst they can say is "yes", the best they can
>> say is "gee, maybe you should learn how to operate them in case we're
>> unavailable - or if the WAN is down" and you get a chance to learn
>> about these things - if anything, it's fodder for the CV.
> 
> Would be nice... However, based on my efforts to learn about the
> firewall configuration [which *is* nontrivial], I suspect I'll get
> nowhere.

Gotta start somewhere.  Conceptually, the firewall isn't going to be 
difficult - either pass traffic or don't based on some rules.  IOS' 
syntax isn't easy, but it's not difficult either - I used to manage a bit 
of Cisco equipment (as well as 3Com equipment; the Netbuilder routers 
were interesting) - but commands typed in are just syntax - once you 
learn the syntax, that's most of the battle.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>> They are freaking reliable routing switches with world-reputation
>> support. Yes, that costs money.
> 
> That's true - but it's also true that the switches we've already got
> have run for 10 years without one single reliability issue.

The people at HQ also want to be sure that you'll run next 10 years the
same way - without problems and need to upgrade.

>> It makes the network more controllable and logical (or to be precise, it
>> makes getting the network more controllable and logical possible). And
>> it increases security, if made correctly.
> 
> I don't see it.
> 
> I mean, if we had one group of nodes that talk to each other and don't
> talk to anything else much, putting them onto a seperate subnet would
> make a lot of sense. But that isn't the case. We have 50 PCs and 4
> servers. All 50 PCs talk to the same 4 servers and the Internet. I fail
> to see how subnetting does *anything* in this situation other than
> adding unecessary complexity.

You'll probably have the servers on different subnet than the
workstations (basic categorizing). If you'll some day (or already, I
just don't think you do) have some slower link, you don't want the bits
to run via it, if not necessary.

And if the HQ is planning to get you all to one big firm-wide network,
it will ease up with subnets.

>> They are making theier job (and yours too) more stable. It's a bit more
>> work to configure the system and some work to maintain it, but it
>> reduces big problems.
> 
> Such as?

Categorizing, as I said. Servers in one place (just like physical),
workstations in another, active devices in third, etc.

>> And yes, I'd love to get Catalyst to be the base of my homenet. But
>> because of the price I'll probably have to just get 1800-series Procurve.
> 
> Your home network must be *much* bigger than mine. ;-)
> 
> [Mine has 3 nodes.]

No, not yet so much bigger. I just like to have the control (besides I
like IOS) ;).

http://www.zbxt.net/hw.php

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
   http://www.zbxt.net
      aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>>> Also, there's no possibility of reconfiguring the switches in any way.
>>> It will all be controlled from HQ.
>>
>> Huh, so they'll be available 24x7 to support any issues?
> 
> Don't be ridiculous. ;-)
> 
> If it breaks, it's only a problem for the UK, and that's a low priority.

This would be a good time to bring it up with your boss, then. That *is* 
part of your job.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:06:23 +0200, Eero Ahonen wrote:

> The people at HQ also want to be sure that you'll run next 10 years the
> same way - without problems and need to upgrade.

Most organizations don't plan that far out, because hardware depreciation 
is 3-5 years, and often times, hardware isn't even supported for 10 years.

Jim

Post a reply to this message