 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
Ethernet switches. They're only like £200 - £400, depending on which
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".
Um, OK. But the switches I was looking at were £200 - £400, and these
Cisco switches are £1,300 *each*. (!!)
Well anyway, HQ bought the switches themselves. I got an email the other
day to say they've finished configuring them now. (It's a switch? What's
to configure? It's a passive component...) They're about to ship them over.
Yesterday I got a document describing the configuration of the switches.
And now it all becomes horribly clear.
These "switches" are actually *routers*. That's why they're so damn
expensive - each one is a 24-port *router*!!
Um... we don't *need* routers. We have 1 subnet. We just need some
ordinary switches. Oh well...
But wait! Looking at the configuration details, it seems HQ want to
split my network into several seperate subnets, and have configured the
routers to route between them.
Er... why?? This isn't necessary. All this does is massively increase
the complexity of my network. For no gain. Why are you going this?? (And
why is today the first I've heard of this?)
*sigh* Clearly I'm going to have to make some phone calls... :-(
[Seriously. Do these people just enjoy making things complicated for the
fun of it? Are they trying to prove how cleaver they are or something?
Perhaps this is job security? I don't know, but where I'm from, it's
usual to go with the *simplest* solution that does what you want, not
the most complicated one...]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> [Seriously. Do these people just enjoy making things complicated for the
> fun of it? Are they trying to prove how cleaver they are or something?
> Perhaps this is job security? I don't know, but where I'm from, it's usual
> to go with the *simplest* solution that does what you want, not the most
> complicated one...]
Oh I see it all the time that people do (or don't do) stuff just to keep
themselves busy, rather than for the overall good of the company. You'd be
stupid to suggest (or not suggest something) that meant you no longer had
any work to do...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Seems like a sharp admin guy could both optimise the network performance
and end up with a couple of shiny 24-port Cisco routers at his personal
disposal.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Oh I see it all the time that people do (or don't do) stuff just to keep
> themselves busy, rather than for the overall good of the company. You'd
> be stupid to suggest (or not suggest something) that meant you no longer
> had any work to do...
Au contrare, I'd have to be a *genius* to think up something that means
that *I* no longer have any work to do. ;-)
[Well, other than obvious options like "hey, let's not use computers any
more..."]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Paul Fuller wrote:
> Seems like a sharp admin guy could both optimise the network performance
> and end up with a couple of shiny 24-port Cisco routers at his personal
> disposal.
Good thinking - but what do I need a 24-port router for?
[More interesting: What happens to the 7 network switches we're using
currently? They'll all be surplus once the move is done...]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Oh I see it all the time that people do (or don't do) stuff just to keep
>> themselves busy, rather than for the overall good of the company. You'd
>> be stupid to suggest (or not suggest something) that meant you no longer
>> had any work to do...
>
> Au contrare, I'd have to be a *genius* to think up something that means
> that *I* no longer have any work to do. ;-)
Recruit a trainee IT dude?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> (It's a switch? What's
> to configure? It's a passive component...)
Wikipedia:
"Low-end network switches appear nearly identical to network hubs, but
a switch contains more "intelligence" (and comes with a
correspondingly slightly higher price tag) than a network hub. Network
switches are capable of inspecting data packets as they are received,
determining the source and destination device of that packet, and
forwarding it appropriately. By delivering each message only to the
connected device it was intended for, a network switch conserves
network bandwidth and offers generally better performance than a hub."
That sounds to me like being more than just a passive component (unlike
a dumb hub which just forwards blindly everywhere)...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Au contrare, I'd have to be a *genius* to think up something that
>> means that *I* no longer have any work to do. ;-)
>
> Recruit a trainee IT dude?
I would think there would probably still be more work than the two of us
can get through...
But I take your point: If we hire, say, six trainee IT people, once I
finish training them all I wouldn't have much work to do.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> (It's a switch? What's
>> to configure? It's a passive component...)
>
> Wikipedia:
>
> "Low-end network switches appear nearly identical to network hubs, but
> a switch contains more "intelligence" (and comes with a
> correspondingly slightly higher price tag) than a network hub. Network
> switches are capable of inspecting data packets as they are received,
> determining the source and destination device of that packet, and
> forwarding it appropriately. By delivering each message only to the
> connected device it was intended for, a network switch conserves
> network bandwidth and offers generally better performance than a hub."
>
> That sounds to me like being more than just a passive component (unlike
> a dumb hub which just forwards blindly everywhere)...
A hub is little more than an amplifier. A switch contains actual control
electronics. That much is true. However, a switch still does the same
*job* as a hub - it just does it better. There still isn't anything that
needs to be "configurated". [But, as I found out, these switches are
actually routers.]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> A hub is little more than an amplifier. A switch contains actual control
> electronics. That much is true. However, a switch still does the same
> *job* as a hub - it just does it better. There still isn't anything that
> needs to be "configurated".
Oh yes there is.
I have a Cisco Catalyst 2950 sat here that has a serial port connection for
configuration.
For a start you can configure security on a per-port basis, ie limit access
to MAC address etc.
Then you can make rules for dropping packets, based on MAC address, IP
address etc. Ie you could prevent the sockets in your conference room from
seeing your mail server unless a known MAC address was plugged in.
You can also have it notify you if an unknown MAC address appears on the
switch.
And a load of QoS stuff.
We also have our VoIP network going through the same switch as our data
network, this needs to be configured too.
They're far from simple boxes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:44:24 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>But I take your point: If we hire, say, six trainee IT people, once I
>finish training them all I wouldn't have much work to do.
Well not IT work. :)
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> For a start you can configure security on a per-port basis, ie limit
> access to MAC address etc.
>
> Then you can make rules for dropping packets, based on MAC address, IP
> address etc. Ie you could prevent the sockets in your conference room
> from seeing your mail server unless a known MAC address was plugged in.
>
> You can also have it notify you if an unknown MAC address appears on the
> switch.
>
> And a load of QoS stuff.
>
> We also have our VoIP network going through the same switch as our data
> network, this needs to be configured too.
>
> They're far from simple boxes.
Then it's not a switch, is it?
A switch is a device that just connects network nodes together. What
you're describing is a firewall and/or router.
Either way, we don't need any of the stuff you're describing.
[I notice HQ is very keen to implement VoIP though, even though we don't
need it. On further investigation, it turns out that while the UK
already has a perfectly good telephone system, HQ doesn't. So it would
be more accurate to say that HQ needs VoIP...]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> They're far from simple boxes.
>
> Then it's not a switch, is it?
Cisco call it a switch.
> A switch is a device that just connects network nodes together.
Not according to Wikipedia:
"Network switches are capable of inspecting data packets as they are
received, determining the source and destination device of that packet, and
forwarding it appropriately"
The fact that you can configure these rules in complex ways and on a per
port basic doesn't mean it becomes a router - it's still a switch.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> They're far from simple boxes.
>>
>> Then it's not a switch, is it?
>
> Cisco call it a switch.
Yes. I noticed. ;-)
>> A switch is a device that just connects network nodes together.
>
> Not according to Wikipedia:
>
> "Network switches are capable of inspecting data packets as they are
> received, determining the source and destination device of that packet,
> and forwarding it appropriately"
>
> The fact that you can configure these rules in complex ways and on a per
> port basic doesn't mean it becomes a router - it's still a switch.
No, but the fact that it's looking at (and changing) IP headers does.
Besides, the fact remains: We don't need this.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> No, but the fact that it's looking at (and changing) IP headers does.
Don't think my switch changes any IP headers, it just either routes them
somewhere or doesn't based on a set of rules.
I thought a switch just dealt with stuff in one network address space, eg
you use it to simply provide enough sockets for everyone to connect into
something else, and it just send unmodified packets to the right place. A
router however connects two different networks together, and has things like
port forwarding, NAT, modifying the IP headers etc.
Or maybe I'm completely off track as I'm no expert, that's just based on my
experience with working with things labelled as "routers" and "switches".
> Besides, the fact remains: We don't need this.
Didn't this come up before when you told us about this? I'm sure everyone
explained to you some of the benefits of the more pricey switches. Was your
post just because you were surprised how configurable a switch can be?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> No, but the fact that it's looking at (and changing) IP headers does.
>
> Don't think my switch changes any IP headers, it just either routes them
> somewhere or doesn't based on a set of rules.
>
> I thought a switch just dealt with stuff in one network address space,
> eg you use it to simply provide enough sockets for everyone to connect
> into something else, and it just send unmodified packets to the right
> place. A router however connects two different networks together, and
> has things like port forwarding, NAT, modifying the IP headers etc.
>
> Or maybe I'm completely off track as I'm no expert, that's just based on
> my experience with working with things labelled as "routers" and
> "switches".
The idea is that a hub just forwards everything, whereas a switch looks
at the Ethernet headers and attempts to make an intelligent choice about
which way to forward [defaulting back to forwarding everywhere if it
doesn't know which way is the correct way].
The device I'm looking at is routing traffic between different IP
networks, which requires looking not only at Ethernet headers but IP
headers as well. That's a seperate level of complexity.
>> Besides, the fact remains: We don't need this.
>
> Didn't this come up before when you told us about this? I'm sure
> everyone explained to you some of the benefits of the more pricey
> switches. Was your post just because you were surprised how
> configurable a switch can be?
Well, you said "my device can do X, Y and Z". I was just noting that we
don't need to be able to do any of those things. That's all.
All we need is a device to connect some nodes together...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:20:56 -0000, scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> did
spake, saying:
>> No, but the fact that it's looking at (and changing) IP headers does.
>
> Don't think my switch changes any IP headers, it just either routes them
> somewhere or doesn't based on a set of rules.
Am I the only one ammused by 'a switch isn't a router because it just
routes packets' implicit here? :-)
> I thought a switch just dealt with stuff in one network address space,
> eg you use it to simply provide enough sockets for everyone to connect
> into something else, and it just send unmodified packets to the right
> place. A router however connects two different networks together, and
> has things like port forwarding, NAT, modifying the IP headers etc.
>
> Or maybe I'm completely off track as I'm no expert, that's just based on
> my experience with working with things labelled as "routers" and
> "switches".
Cutting to the bone:
A hub takes input and fires it out of every port; a switch takes input and
routes/switches it to the correct port for the same subnet; a router
connects subnets together. If you want to know what to call the piece of
equipment you're using just check its capabilities up that list and stop
when they don't match.
So when you have a piece of equipment connecting the 'Internet' subnet to
your 'Home' subnet that's a router despite the fact it also connects all
your computers on the same subnet, which would just be a switch or hub on
its own.
IOW it doesn't matter if it inspects packets, reports QoS, checks MAC
addresses or sings "Daisy, Daisy" when there's a fault; thouse are just
added features.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:06:41 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>These "switches" are actually *routers*. That's why they're so damn
>expensive - each one is a 24-port *router*!!
Which model are you getting?
BTW, just because a switch does layer 3 inspection (for QoS and such), does not make
it a router. It may still be directing the packets to the appropriate port based on
the MAC address (layer 2) and
not the IP address.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> These "switches" are actually *routers*. That's why they're so damn
>> expensive - each one is a 24-port *router*!!
>
> Which model are you getting?
Cisco Catalyst 3560.
> BTW, just because a switch does layer 3 inspection (for QoS and such), does not make
it a router. It may still be directing the packets to the appropriate port based on
the MAC address (layer 2) and
> not the IP address.
You can argue about the names. The point is it provides wildly more
functionallity than we actually need.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:07:55 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>You can argue about the names.
There's no argument about the names. I won't let you call an apple an orange without
pointing out that it really is an apple (although it may have an orange hue to it).
>The point is it provides wildly more
>functionallity than we actually need.
Based on your description of your network, that sounds true. It's kind of like frying
an egg with a nuclear reactor. (Well not to that extreme, but you catch my drift.)
Have you asked them why they
opted for the more expensive Cisco units?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> You can argue about the names.
>
> There's no argument about the names. I won't let you
> call an apple an orange without pointing out that it
> really is an apple (although it may have an orange hue to it).
My point is I'm less worried about names and more worried about what it
actually *does*. ;-)
>> The point is it provides wildly more
>> functionallity than we actually need.
>
> Based on your description of your network, that sounds true.
> It's kind of like frying an egg with a nuclear reactor.
> (Well not to that extreme, but you catch my drift.)
> Have you asked them why they opted for the more expensive Cisco units?
They want everybody to use the same brand and model of... well,
everything actually. And Cisco is undeniably the best brand on the market...
As for why the multiple submets... er... I have no idea.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:07:55 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>Cisco Catalyst 3560.
I just watched the "Video Data Sheet" at
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps5528/ for the device. It's quite
interesting how the video features the Senior Product Manager speaking
English with a very heavy French accent, to the point that he is almost
incomprehensible. It's good that the video is subtitled.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Then it's not a switch, is it?
In most situations, a router is something that directs packets based on
an ISO level-3 address (i.e., an IP address) and a switch is something
that directs packets based on a level-2 address (i.e., a MAC address).
Nothing says a switch can't do active routing jobs.
--
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 Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:45:50 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> A hub is little more than an amplifier. A switch contains actual control
> electronics. That much is true. However, a switch still does the same
> *job* as a hub - it just does it better. There still isn't anything that
> needs to be "configurated". [But, as I found out, these switches are
> actually routers.]
A switch limits the collision domain, which is good for performance but
bad for network monitoring tasks. Many of the Cisco switches of the last
several years (and other "smart" switches, for that matter) have
management interfaces that let you view traffic counters and other
diagnostic information to help you isolate problems. Not to mention port
mirroring (as Cisco calls it) to allow you to use your copy of Wireshark
to view all the traffic seen on another port on the switch for diagnostic
purposes.
Because the collision domain is restricted, there's also buffering
components and elements to eliminate collisions nearly completely (or
completely).
A lot of the newer switches on the market also include authentication
smarts, so only authorized devices can be plugged into the network.
802.11x authentication (I think is what is used) can be used against
directory service data stores as well, providing a high degree of
security in environments that need it.
What kind of switches are they? Some switches identify as being layer 3
switches (in the OSI model), but some newer ones will also do layer 4
switching, which also increases the complexity of the component. Many
times, a L4 switch can be thought of as a router, even though it really
isn't (a router connects one subnet to another).
Some switches also include smarts for VLANs, which limit the broadcast
domain as well as the collision domain limiting that a dumb switch will
do.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:54:23 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> No, but the fact that it's looking at (and changing) IP headers does.
Routers are not the only components that do that.
> Besides, the fact remains: We don't need this.
You may not think so, but maybe the folks at HQ have some ideas that they
haven't told you about. Or things like VOIP, which while you may not
need it there, can significantly reduce calling charges overseas. Think
Skype.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:41:26 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> The device I'm looking at is routing traffic between different IP
> networks, which requires looking not only at Ethernet headers but IP
> headers as well. That's a seperate level of complexity.
Doesn't reach the same level of complexity as a router, though. What
you're describing is a layer 4 switch, I believe.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:07:55 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> The point is it provides wildly more
> functionallity than we actually need.
Today, but when you spend money on networking infrastructure, you also
plan for what you might need in the future. Some places just buy the
biggest thing they can so it's not going to be obsoleted before the
depreciation timeframe expires.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> but some newer ones will also do layer 4 switching,
Layer four is transport layer. WTF is doing translation between
transport layers?
--
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 Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:29:33 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> but some newer ones will also do layer 4 switching,
>
> Layer four is transport layer. WTF is doing translation between
> transport layers?
I dunno, but I know at work they just implemented a bunch of L4 switches,
and the technology has been around for some time...
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> They want everybody to use the same brand and model of... well,
> everything actually.
You know, that's not such a bad policy (when used reasonably).
Ask yourself this:
) What can this equipment do that you currently cannot do with your network?
) What would it be needed for?
) What might change over the next five years to make this equipment a
good choice?
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I dunno, but I know at work they just implemented a bunch of L4 switches,
> and the technology has been around for some time...
Unless you're routing between the OSI stack and TCP or something, I just
can't imagine it isn't some marketing-speak for "application-layer
gateway" or something.
--
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 Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:31:45 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I dunno, but I know at work they just implemented a bunch of L4
>> switches, and the technology has been around for some time...
>
> Unless you're routing between the OSI stack and TCP or something, I just
> can't imagine it isn't some marketing-speak for "application-layer
> gateway" or something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layer_4_switch
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layer_4_switch
Oh. Cool. I guessed right. :-)
--
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 Sun, 13 Jan 2008 09:23:19 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layer_4_switch
>
> Oh. Cool. I guessed right. :-)
:-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> They want everybody to use the same brand and model of... well,
>> everything actually.
>
> You know, that's not such a bad policy (when used reasonably).
No, it's not really.
Or rather, it's a good policy if the thing you choose to standardise on
is a good choice. In this case, apart from the astronomical cost,
choosing Cisco is a pretty sensible choice (if a little overkill).
> ) What can this equipment do that you currently cannot do with your
> network?
I'm guessing it's possible to configure these routers so you can monitor
traffic from any node. [Not that I will be given the tools necessary to
do this.]
It should also be easier to set up strange network configurations
temporarily if the need arrises. [Again, I won't be allowed to do this.]
> ) What might change over the next five years to make this equipment a
> good choice?
Hopefully I won't be working here long enough to care...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:35:13 -0000, Jim Henderson
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:07:55 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>
>> The point is it provides wildly more
>> functionallity than we actually need.
>
> Today, but when you spend money on networking infrastructure, you also
> plan for what you might need in the future. Some places just buy the
> biggest thing they can so it's not going to be obsoleted before the
> depreciation timeframe expires.
Or from the more practical view they needed 35, but get a discount if they
buy 50; so they justified the extra 15 by sending them to the UK :-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:01:42 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:35:13 -0000, Jim Henderson
> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:07:55 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>
>>> The point is it provides wildly more
>>> functionallity than we actually need.
>>
>> Today, but when you spend money on networking infrastructure, you also
>> plan for what you might need in the future. Some places just buy the
>> biggest thing they can so it's not going to be obsoleted before the
>> depreciation timeframe expires.
>
> Or from the more practical view they needed 35, but get a discount if
> they buy 50; so they justified the extra 15 by sending them to the UK
> :-)
That's also true. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> OK, so the company I work for is moving to a new building.
Finally. That's one thing you've been waiting for ;).
> As part of the move, I thought it would be nice to buy some new gigabit
> Ethernet switches. They're only like £200 - £400, depending on which
> 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".
Yes. Keep the line clear, and the network will be easier to maintain.
> Um, OK. But the switches I was looking at were £200 - £400, and these
> Cisco switches are £1,300 *each*. (!!)
Yes. Cisco has a price. Cisco also has IOS, functionality, support,
quality and reputation. Practically Cisco is always a safe choice, when
it comes to network devices.
> Well anyway, HQ bought the switches themselves. I got an email the other
> day to say they've finished configuring them now. (It's a switch? What's
> to configure? It's a passive component...) They're about to ship them over.
No, it's not a passive component. Even the stupidest switches have some
intelligence and do active job. Manageable switches do much more and
routing switches (like the ones you'll get) are 'bout blessing for
network infrastructures.
> Yesterday I got a document describing the configuration of the switches.
> And now it all becomes horribly clear.
>
> These "switches" are actually *routers*. That's why they're so damn
> expensive - each one is a 24-port *router*!!
They are freaking reliable routing switches with world-reputation
support. Yes, that costs money.
> Um... we don't *need* routers. We have 1 subnet. We just need some
> ordinary switches. Oh well...
>
> But wait! Looking at the configuration details, it seems HQ want to
> split my network into several seperate subnets, and have configured the
> routers to route between them.
Because you can :).
> Er... why?? This isn't necessary. All this does is massively increase
> the complexity of my network. For no gain. Why are you going this?? (And
> why is today the first I've heard of this?)
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.
> *sigh* Clearly I'm going to have to make some phone calls... :-(
>
> [Seriously. Do these people just enjoy making things complicated for the
> fun of it? Are they trying to prove how cleaver they are or something?
> Perhaps this is job security? I don't know, but where I'm from, it's
> usual to go with the *simplest* solution that does what you want, not
> the most complicated one...]
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.
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.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Um, OK. But the switches I was looking at were £200 - £400, and these
>> Cisco switches are £1,300 *each*. (!!)
>
> Yes. Cisco has a price. Cisco also has IOS, functionality, support,
> quality and reputation. Practically Cisco is always a safe choice, when
> it comes to network devices.
Oh, sure, nobody can deny Cisco is the best brand on the market. ;-)
Maybe that will become useful in the future; at the moment it's pure
overkill.
> 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.
>> Er... why?? This isn't necessary. All this does is massively increase
>> the complexity of my network. For no gain. Why are you going this?? (And
>> why is today the first I've heard of this?)
>
> 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.
> 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?
> 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.]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
> Ethernet switches. They're only like £200 - £400, depending on which
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
