|
Seriously are you hiring? Being the VoIP guy at two VoIP companies hasn't brought me even close to that.
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 14:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 06:15 |
|
|
Our engineers spend most of their time in NetCracker.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 14:20
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:What magical company do you work at? Yes, do tell. I'll quit my current job today.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 15:45
|
|
|
My job is roughly analogous to this: Management: "We need some kind of vehicle. Something that goes from one place to another place. I'm just spit-ballin' here, but maybe wheels? I've heard good things about wheels." Me: "You mean like a car? We could do that. It has wheels, and maybe we could put in a sun roof, and a stereo." Management: "Yes! That is exactly what we want! A car! Brilliant! Start right away!" <three weeks later> Me: "Well, here you go, here's your shiny new car. It's everything you wanted, and we also put in a GPS unit and some airbags and stuff." Management: "So does it go underwater and fly? Because it really needs to go underwater and fly. Also it needs to go into outer space, did we mention that? And change the color." Me: "I hate you all."
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 15:57
|
|
|
"The customer wants the car to make popcorn"
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 16:02
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:"The customer wants the car to be made of popcorn" Fixed for my experiences.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 16:03
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:What magical company do you work at? I was going to say I have the exact opposite experience. Usually we're seen as a cost center because we just keep asking for more when what we have "already works". The best part is when something does fail we can tell them exactly why because we proposed a solution to prevent this kind of thing but they chose the cheaper route. We just make the poo poo work, they don't see us as important unless things go wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 16:38
|
|
|
It doesn't matter the name of the firm I work for. You can Internet detective me and maybe work it out, or you can just listen to what I'm saying to you. It's a mindset. It's a way of looking at IT. Corporations like silos, they like things being compartmentalized so they can easily account for it and attribute costs to their cost centers, which in a corporation IT is. In a consultancy company we're a revenue center, we make the money. This is where the culture comes from, driven from the people that started the firm which are frustrated IT professionals who got sick of listening to business people talk poo poo. It's hard, way harder than any corporate gig. I do timesheets, accounting for each hour I spend and billing it to someone, my own firm if not to a client. Too much 'administrative time' and a project manager will come over and ask why it took you three hours to work out a problem with AD when we're paying you to be a senior engineer. But if you can do it, if you go home and work out your poo poo so you come to work and kick the rear end of that problem, then the rewards come. It's like this because the company is driven by IT people, they know that if it's Microsoft you probably just need to Google hard enough to find the answer, if it's Cisco why haven't you logged a TAC case yet? I can't really express this part to you. The hardcore alpha male personalities that are our owners are intense, ex-programmers turned infrastructure jocks, ex-Unix gurus that stopped loling at Microsoft and decided they could just learn that too. I asked a question once of a project and got totally verbally abused because 'I'm not going to tell you how to suck eggs. You're an engineer and we pay you as such. I'm not going to tell you the answer to this, you work it out and live by your recommendation'. The result is I've been sold to a major energy corporation, it's my second week into a three month contract for them and in an environment of over a thousand Windows servers I've been asked to do the late shift. That means after 5pm until 6pm (when I go home) I am the entire team, everyone else goes home. I've not touched Windows servers for literally years, since my last job, because for my current firm I'm pretty much solely a networking guy working with ASAs and a massive wireless project we sold to a health corporation. But I've walked in and in less than a fortnight they've given me the keys to a multi-million dollar Windows network. Chassis of hundreds of virtualised servers could go down, and I'm the guy on the ground, and I'm ok with it because I come from consulting where it's about knowing the tech rather than some corporate handballing process. It's just this week and this week just ended, but the point is I'm on par with people that have been in this role with this corporation for twenty years. Windows isn't even my forte at the moment, but it's not about knowing it better than Microsoft, it's about knowing what is important and how to troubleshoot and think effectively. Effectively is the key word, my firm usually bills me at over 200 bucks an hour to 'T&M' jobs, time and materials where some random company has a problem and engages us to sort it. Once you're used to walking in and sorting it out while their IT department is staring goggle-eyed and then having a thousand dollar invoice sent through and they happily paying it, doing something like this Windows gig is a walk in the park. This is why I say screw the CCIE. If you really want to work for a major telco troubleshooting backbones then whatever, but if you like information technology, the technology of how computers work in business then networking is only a part of that pie. You're welcome to go to the 'IT Careers' thread where I wrote up my history and how I got to where I am if you're interested. Once you work for a consulting firm such as mine, and they can easily sell you to any major enterprise who sing your praises or stick on a major project and you get it done then the salespeople send you emails asking for fifteen minutes of your time. The general manager of my firm is coming out to the company I've been sold to for a discussion with me about future direction, but at the client's premises so not to interrupt what I'm doing for them. We make the money. We drive the firm. We leave, you've got find another one and in a world of specialists someone that can cross boundaries, spec the storage, servers AND network are very hard to find. I urge you not to think of me as arrogant. I'm just someone that has done formal education, done vendor certs, worked in pretty much every flavor of IT that I know exists and these are the truths I've found. I'd really love to hear from people that have similar experiences to mine and an alternate viewpoint, I'm still trying to find my way through this industry too. jwh posted:My job is roughly analogous to this: Square peg in a round hole. Mate, this is what we're paid for 
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 16:42
|
|
|
jwh posted:My job is roughly analogous to this: http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2010-11-05/
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 16:44
|
|
|
Let me just add something, if I already haven't said enough. This isn't some magic place we're we always do the best IT. Often it's about getting in there, plugging holes as best as possible, billing the client for a shitload and then running. But internal IT does this too. IT doesn't exist in a vacuum. IT exists to meet business goals, never forget this. Nerds would like unlimited budgets and time to make the best systems to stand back and pat each other on the back and admire their work, but that's because they're nerds and live in an alter-reality. Business just wants the goals met, with as little spent as possible because that is the definition of a business (a successful one). That doesn't mean we can't get lovely when we're lead in a scenario like the car posted above, but when you bill them a couple of hundred bucks for each hour they waste like this you find the stop loving around pretty quickly. Or we just make millions and get paid accordingly, many the time I've yelled in frustration at a project manager about some bullshit and they've said 'if the client wants to be a human being, your job is to lube up'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 17:14
|
|
|
Anyone noticing anything strange with XO/L3? Cogent is dropping packets according to the IHR and while checking our connections in PRTG I noticed some weird spikes/drops on our other two backend connections.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 20:53
|
|
|
Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:Anyone noticing anything strange with XO/L3? Cogent is dropping packets according to the IHR and while checking our connections in PRTG I noticed some weird spikes/drops on our other two backend connections. Nothing pops out on this site: http://www.internetpulse.net/Main.aspx?Period=RH4
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 21:06
|
|
|
Hey JWH, have you done anything with SSL VPN on the PAs you guys run? Would like your impressions. Also if it can support bringing up the tunnel before login like AnyConnect can.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 22:50
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:Let me just add something, if I already haven't said enough. Honestly your job sounds terrible and you seem like kind of an idiot. You don't need to be an IT mercenary to make a good living or enjoy working. The only part that really sucks about working as a service provider or internal IT is when you have to fight to justify some new expenses for a project to someone who doesn't understand the technology. Unrelated to that, the corp IT guys at work are having trouble with some access points (dlink, not sure the model) and they asked me to take a look. The access points auth with 802.1X to a radius server (IAS) and then they get their DHCP lease from some other windows server. The problem I'm seeing is that the clients can auth but they aren't getting a DHCP lease, rebooting the AP seems to allow new DHCP leases but I don't think that's a viable solution. What kind of access point should I suggest to replace these? I was looking at the aironet 3500 series, and I'm seeing them going for about 600 online. Do I just need the access points or is there more to it? ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Apr 16, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 03:11
|
|
|
I like his enthusiasm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 03:14
|
|
|
Ninja Rope posted:I like his enthusiasm. It's the only place I've managed to find like minded people
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 03:20
|
|
|
Steve Slavery posted:Honestly your job sounds terrible and you seem like kind of an idiot. Oh and despite being an idiot you should look into Cisco's WLCs. I've recently deployed a wireless network around that size using 1140 APs. WLC firmware isn't the best when shipped, but the TAC can give you engineering releases that work better. Yes, there is more to it. edit: Are you the 'Abinadi Rendon' referenced in your homepage link? If you are, taking a quick look at your online resume I see no mention of any qualifications. Nothing formal like college and no vendor certifications. Is that an omission? Do you honestly have a little hosting business called 'WTFServe' that you reference on your resume? Tony Montana fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Apr 16, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 03:24
|
|
|
Steve Slavery posted:Unrelated to that, the corp IT guys at work are having trouble with some access points (dlink, not sure the model) and they asked me to take a look. The access points auth with 802.1X to a radius server (IAS) and then they get their DHCP lease from some other windows server. The problem I'm seeing is that the clients can auth but they aren't getting a DHCP lease, rebooting the AP seems to allow new DHCP leases but I don't think that's a viable solution. I vaguely recall dlink access points doing improper things with DHCP replies (not forwarding broadcast layer 2 traffic and other strange things). I imagine this information will not help you in any way, now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 03:35
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:Oh and despite being an idiot you should look into Cisco's WLCs. I've recently deployed a wireless network around that size using 1140 APs. WLC firmware isn't the best when shipped, but the TAC can give you engineering releases that work better. I won't chime in on the whole resume-stalking thing, but the controller/dumb-AP model is here to stay. It's so incredibly simple and scalable that autonomous APs will never come back. Cisco, Aruba...it doesnt matter. Personally, I used to be a Cisco WLC zealot, but Aruba has won me over.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 04:26
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:edit: Are you the 'Abinadi Rendon' referenced in your homepage link? If you are, taking a quick look at your online resume I see no mention of any qualifications. Nothing formal like college and no vendor certifications. Is that an omission? Do you honestly have a little hosting business called 'WTFServe' that you reference on your resume? Shut up, no one cares. You sound like a giant self-important douchebag.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 04:38
|
|
|
jbusbysack posted:I won't chime in on the whole resume-stalking thing, but the controller/dumb-AP model is here to stay. It's so incredibly simple and scalable that autonomous APs will never come back. Cisco, Aruba...it doesnt matter. Mm, I read an interesting article recently about where it's supposedly going next. 'Smart' APs is what they're referring to it as, which are still centrally controlled but are not 'dumb' in that they can do things like authentication themselves. You still want central control for things like channel selection and power management, with a WLC system (I haven't used Aruba but you'd think it does this too) it creates a map of the site and varies power of the APs accordingly. But to do 802.1X auth they've gotta go back to the WLC, which is expensive and for smaller sites you don't really want to have to put one in for each. You can use WAN links and just have routing and switching hardware at the remote site, but if the WAN link goes down then users can't auth. There are ways to mitigate this (such as H-REAP which will allow an already authenticated user to roam to other APs in the group) but 'smart' APs have been suggested to do things like RADIUS auth themselves and rely on the WLC less.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 04:57
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:Mm, I read an interesting article recently about where it's supposedly going next. 'Smart' APs is what they're referring to it as, which are still centrally controlled but are not 'dumb' in that they can do things like authentication themselves. You still want central control for things like channel selection and power management, with a WLC system (I haven't used Aruba but you'd think it does this too) it creates a map of the site and varies power of the APs accordingly. Seeing as how single-connection sites shouldn't be even thought about anymore (MPLS/Commodity internet + VPN) with a cellular card backup being so cheap. Even a baby 1800 can pull off that setup, I see no need for a 'smart AP'. Also with a site isolated, except in the case of a distribution facility or other warehouse settings a WAN failure has bigger problems than APs not being able to pass off authentications.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 07:15
|
|
|
Thanks for the input guys, I'll do some research on Aruba and Cisco WLC. With the little I've researched so far it looks like it should be pretty straight forward. I've never had to configure any wireless networks before so it should be fun. Are there any specific models I should ask about for roughly 100 active clients? Also yes I run wtfserve.com and I have it on my resume, I also didn't go to college and I don't have any certs. I do pretty well for myself and I like my work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 09:15
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:with a WLC system (I haven't used Aruba but you'd think it does this too) it creates a map of the site and varies power of the APs accordingly. edit: Linksys has their own version, ANUS, Adaptive N-band Utilization Service thiscommercialsucks fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Apr 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 20:45
|
|
|
Defiantly consider Aruba "mobility controllers"...we run around 3000+ clients and about 400 access-points off them and they are fairly unbreakable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 08:22
|
|
|
jwh posted:Short answer? No. Hey jwh, I was kind of confused by this comment. As a person who plans their career a good 5-10 years in advance, I would like to know why you said this. This was referring to the question "Should I be concerned about Network Engineer jobs going out in the future?" Not sure if I read it right but I was thinking that I shouldn't invest so much into Cisco if they wont be a real force in the years to come. Virtualization aside, I guess I am trying to narrow down what else I can study to be "future proof"
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 16:08
|
|
|
Bardlebee posted:Not sure if I read it right but I was thinking that I shouldn't invest so much into Cisco if they wont be a real force in the years to come. Virtualization aside, I guess I am trying to narrow down what else I can study to be "future proof" Networks, and Cisco will be around for quite a while. We haven't even moved to IPV6 yet!
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 16:14
|
|
|
Tremblay posted:Hey JWH, have you done anything with SSL VPN on the PAs you guys run? Would like your impressions. Also if it can support bringing up the tunnel before login like AnyConnect can. Haven't worked with it myself- we still use our Juniper SA's for SSL VPN. Our role mappings are fairly complex, so I've been dragging my feet on evaluating the PA SSL VPN. We are, however, very *very* interested in the PA Global Protect. It's essentially an always-on VPN back to your firewalls, so you can leverage the URL filtering, IPS, and DLP from your roaming clients. It sounds like a good fit for us, but we haven't looked at it yet. Bardlebee posted:Hey jwh, I was kind of confused by this comment. As a person who plans their career a good 5-10 years in advance, I would like to know why you said this. This was referring to the question "Should I be concerned about Network Engineer jobs going out in the future?" What I meant was, virtualization is a major force, and it is already dictating different approaches to datacenter design. It's pushing the need for higher density and higher bandwidth links to the edges, and it's doing it very quickly. This has major downstream implications for your core and distribution, as aggregating a lot of ten gig ethernet, for example, is going to drive you into different platforms very quickly. 6500 is a bad platform for 10gig aggregation, it's not cost effective, and the current generation 6500 10-gig linecards have substantial caveats having to do with oversubscription, etc. The more general problem is that as the storage and network fabrics converge, the line between storage engineers and network engineers is blurred, and the role of systems personnel working with virtual switches on the VM hypervisor and traditional network engineers is also blurred. I don't have any advice, but from what I can tell, everything is continuing to come together and a traditional networking skillset is not going to be as applicable in the datacenter space. I predict things won't change very much at the periphery for a good while, though. And the WAN space is mostly unchanging. The only big thing I see happening there is the continued expansion of 3G coverage and the continued movement toward PON ethernet delivery as an enterprise successor to SONET. But that's just my opinion, take it for what it's worth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 16:26
|
|
|
jwh posted:Haven't worked with it myself- we still use our Juniper SA's for SSL VPN. Our role mappings are fairly complex, so I've been dragging my feet on evaluating the PA SSL VPN. That sounds fair and unfortunate. While doing network admin/data stuff is pretty straight forward to me, I don't find it as enjoyable as setting up network configurations. I don't mind that the lines are going to be blurred soon, I can adjust and learn data center stuff just fine. As long as I have a job that garners respect (Hah! We work in IT), is enjoyable, and pays very well I think I will be okay. Virtualization is cool, but I kinda like doing it the old way. Having that said, I haven't been able to mess with VM stuff yet so my opinion will likely change quickly. When I finally work for this DoD position and if I am chosen, then I am sure all this will become very real to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 16:51
|
|
|
You may also want to think about what you ultimately want to be your focus (eg: security or routing/switching). I personally am taking the hard route and going security but I think it offers better job security and more rewarding in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 16:55
|
|
|
Sepist posted:You may also want to think about what you ultimately want to be your focus (eg: security or routing/switching). I personally am taking the hard route and going security but I think it offers better job security and more rewarding in the long run. I want to do security, but I am worried that so many people are doing that right now that I am just going to be another name in the pile. Basically my five year plan for certifications goes as follows: CCNP then CCNA: Security then CCNP: Security maybe CCNA:VOIP if there is time I am only doing VoIP as well because it seems like it is in demand, not because I am entirely interested in it. I like Security due to its difficulty, I am a rather humble guy in person, but I also like to be known as "That Guy" with all the answers. I am obviously no where near that going into my first Net Engi job of course. I am a bit concerned that if I focus on Cisco completely I will be screwing my career. Seeing this virtualization stuff has me second guessing this five year plan here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 17:02
|
|
|
Bardlebee posted:I want to do security, but I am worried that so many people are doing that right now that I am just going to be another name in the pile. Basically my five year plan for certifications goes as follows: You won't be screwing yourself if you actually learn how things work. There are differences in implementation, and obviously syntax between vendors. If you understand how something is supposed to work then you can go from there. It wouldn't be a bad idea to add a JNCA or whatever their intro level cert is AFTER you finish your CCNP. Since we are talking about certs depending on what you are doing day in and day out will change what you might go for. I have a CISSP (die) and a CCIE security. I never did CCNA or CCNP. I'll say that certainly wasn't the easy path. Because of this though, I'm relatively weak in routing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 19:54
|
|
|
Couple of questions: What do you think of the advanced ISC2 certs like the ISSEP, ISSAP, and ISSMP? I have no doubt it's more of the same gibberish, but do they command any respect and/or salary premium? What do you think of the SANS security curriculum & certs? What do you think of the relative difficulty of the CCIE Security is vs the CCIE RS? A guy I work with claims the CCIE Voice is more of a time trial without the endless tricks & caveats of the RS. I have no idea if that's accurate or not; presuming it is, where does security fall in that spectrum?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 20:19
|
|
|
Tremblay posted:You won't be screwing yourself if you actually learn how things work. There are differences in implementation, and obviously syntax between vendors. If you understand how something is supposed to work then you can go from there. It wouldn't be a bad idea to add a JNCA or whatever their intro level cert is AFTER you finish your CCNP. Tremblay, that's actually why I am doing the CCNP first, then going into CCNP: Security. I would like a strong fundamental and advanced view of routing and switching before a tackle a subject such as security. The CISSP is one of those acronyms I have heard about, but never fully researched. I just know its a bad rear end "I'm that guy" certifications. Good hustle there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 20:32
|
|
|
Bardlebee posted:The CISSP is one of those acronyms I have heard about, but never fully researched. I just know its a bad rear end "I'm that guy" certifications. Good hustle there. There's absolutely nothing "bad rear end" about passing the CISSP.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 20:39
|
|
|
inignot posted:There's absolutely nothing "bad rear end" about passing the CISSP. Oh, well maybe I was thinking of something else then. I thought it was a certification that was highly sought after and difficult as hell to get... no? In my 25 year old vernacular, that is bad rear end.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 20:41
|
|
|
I hold the view that you can't really be an effective network security worker unless you've come from a networking background. I see applicants all the time that want to work "IT Security" and their work history is... IT Security. Not to slander anybody, and there are exceptions to everything, but I've never got on well with security folks that weren't previously network folks. To some end there are skills that are universally worth having, regardless of what you're doing. Understanding how TCP works is hugely beneficial to just about everyone. I wish more application programmer types would learn how TCP works. The other thing I would say is that try and learn how a technology works, not a product. The technological underpinnings of your gear are by far more transferable than knowing a handful of IOS CLI commands.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 20:44
|
|
|
Does anyone have any great ideas for how an individual might find, or create using tools already available, a list of all the purveyors of alcoholic drinks within a city? In the list I would hope to include all manner of pubs, clubs, bars, tobacconists, newsagents, cornershops.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 20:46
|
|
|
jwh posted:I hold the view that you can't really be an effective network security worker unless you've come from a networking background. I see applicants all the time that want to work "IT Security" and their work history is... IT Security. What the hell do they cover in those stupid ITT tech classes, anyway? "10 ways to secure your network" and poo poo like that? It reminds me of the kids who would ask "How do I write a crack for _____?" Well, you've got to know how copy protection works, you've got to know some programming (assembler), you've got to know how to use a debugger, you'll need to know how the hardware works (some copy protection uses dongles or other tricks) and most of all you've got to know what to look for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 06:15 |
|
|
jwh posted:I hold the view that you can't really be an effective network security worker unless you've come from a networking background. I see applicants all the time that want to work "IT Security" and their work history is... IT Security. I agree completely. I am sick to death of dumb security people insisting on some checklist of "hardening" commands on a router without having any idea what any of those commands *actually do*. And if someone doesn't know what a command does, how do they know implementing it is advisable? I think security is a cargo cult.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 21:10
|
|