|
If a CCIE recommended running DHCP on any network device in an enterprise network, I'd promptly show him the door. I'd probably do the same for any "network" person who recommended it. There are better tools to get the job done.
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 12:08 |
|
|
H.R. Paperstacks posted:If a CCIE recommended running DHCP on any network device in an enterprise network, I'd promptly show him the door. I'd probably do the same for any "network" person who recommended it. There are better tools to get the job done. As silly as the advice was lets try not to go off the deep end. Showing someone the door for this seems kind of... petty?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
Also it's probably your fault for asking someone who only deals with networks to run up a DHCP service. Why would you expect them to do it any other way than the one they are comfortable with?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
At the CCIE level, I'd expect someone to have a fairly diverse set of knowledge that goes beyond networking. A CCIE who doesn't know at least best practices or industry trends regarding the implementation of the systems and services his network is supposed to deliver probably isn't a very good networking guy. It's the same thing as a sysadmin who thinks that the world begins and ends on the server.
psydude fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
Right, but if you are a company large enough to employ CCIEs then you sort of have to assume that you also employ MCSA/MCSEs as well. So by going to the Cisco guy you'd assume that you were being asked to implement it on the networking kit. But whatever, it was a made up situation and a strange statement to make.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
Sickening posted:As silly as the advice was lets try not to go off the deep end. Showing someone the door for this seems kind of... petty? It's the typical "when all you got is a hammer, everything is a nail" syndrome. Failure to think outside the box.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
H.R. Paperstacks posted:It's the typical "when all you got is a hammer, everything is a nail" syndrome. Failure to think outside the box.  Or you could take a few minutes out of your busy day to be less of a robot and talk to the person about what a better solution would be. Even with the long list of things that I would probably fire someone over DHCP just doesn't seem to move the needle for me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
Sickening posted:
But I'm not paying CCIE rates to have a discussion about what a better solution to DHCP on a network device would be. It shouldn't have been offered as a solution in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:Oh screw you guys, never in my life have I seen anything go wrong with DHCP on a catalyst, but I've also done a decade of Windows 2003 dhcp servers and holy hell why would you trust your network's connectivity to anything running Windows? M$ Winblowz amirite? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
H.R. Paperstacks posted:But I'm not paying CCIE rates to have a discussion about what a better solution to DHCP on a network device would be. It shouldn't have been offered as a solution in the first place. Don't ask them about setting you up a DHCP server then 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:Don't ask them about setting you up a DHCP server then "OTHER DUTIES AS REQUIRED!!!!" 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
Wow.. I go hang out with family for a couple days and return to find a DHCP shitstorm in the thread. Use the best tool for your environment. If you have CCIEs who can make DHCP magic on switches and routers. Go for it! For me with 1 physical and 1 virtual DC, I loves me some 2012 with Failover! Just my brand of magic! Speaking of DHCP Failover... is there another platform with full scope failover/redundancy for DHCP? Everything I've ever seen recommends the whole split scope methods of providing High Availability. The awesome part in 2012 is that the leases are replicated across so that if Server A is down, Server B will continue to manage those leases and the scope portion assigned to Server A as a whole. When Server A comes back it picks up the relationship, replicates everything back over and picks up right where things left off. As for IPAM, there is an IPAM role in 2012 that I've been meaning to fiddle with in my lab but just haven't made the time yet. (THANKS Windows 10 and System Center vNext!) The marketing speak and features list make it sound pretty decent but FIM sounds amazing too (and is once you spend a gazillion years getting it all configured JUST so) so I'm worried it might be one of those situations where there's a massive level of effort required to get the good stuff out of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
Sickening posted:
No, whenever someone has a different approach to an issue, I immediately think of ways to terminate them
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
He meant show him the door to the break room so he can sit down and have a casual 10 minute chat over coffee about specialization, usability concerns and a networking department's role in the overall technical landscape. Like an adult. Obviously.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
ElGroucho posted:No, whenever someone has a different approach to an issue, I immediately think of ways to terminate them Beep bop boop, error, resource did not return expected answer. Terminating resource.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
This will be my third week working from home. Everybody I work with on projects is on vacation. All of my projects are complete. "Has steady job" is me right now. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Zaepho posted:Speaking of DHCP Failover... is there another platform with full scope failover/redundancy for DHCP? Everything I've ever seen recommends the whole split scope methods of providing High Availability. The awesome part in 2012 is that the leases are replicated across so that if Server A is down, Server B will continue to manage those leases and the scope portion assigned to Server A as a whole. When Server A comes back it picks up the relationship, replicates everything back over and picks up right where things left off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Misogynist posted:ISC dhcpd will happily replicate its configuration to another server, and any competent frontend around it should support doing the same. (Most commercial DHCP offerings, even the very expensive ones, are shiny frontends on top of dhcpd.) Does that include the current lease DB? It makes sense that it would include reservations which is good. And you can deal without the leases being replicated although you may get a few blips if something shifts to a new IP address until DNS has updated and the old entry timed out and been flushed from caches.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
Bhodi posted:He meant show him the door to the break room so he can sit down and have a casual 10 minute chat over coffee about specialization, usability concerns and a networking department's role in the overall technical landscape. My rise to the top is littered with dissenting system administrators dead bodies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
incoherent posted:My rise to the top is littered with dissenting system administrators dead bodies. There can only be one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
Fiendish Dr. Wu posted:This will be my third week working from home. Everybody I work with on projects is on vacation. All of my projects are complete. Has steady job doesn't have an xbox controller in his hand, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Zaepho posted:Does that include the current lease DB? It makes sense that it would include reservations which is good. And you can deal without the leases being replicated although you may get a few blips if something shifts to a new IP address until DNS has updated and the old entry timed out and been flushed from caches. go3 posted:There can only be one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
go3 posted:There can only be one. That's just a story we made up to make ourselves feel better. It's all about being super nice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
DHCP chat. A while back my entire building's connections were hosed. It took a while to track down the root cause. Ultimately, a dev hosed up setting up a test environment in his office, got his wan and lan ports confused, and was spewing leases for his test domain all over.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Ha, back when I was in college my RA put his WRT54G on the WAN taking down the entire campus. Good times.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
I'm not sure if I should be posting this here or create a new thread, but here goes: In the morning once-ina-a-blue-moon meeting today, my boss brought up the four year old chestnut of "We need to work on the Intranet and get it up ASAP. Get me some options so we can get this going. I know you've done the research before, but get it to me again." Sigh. Me: "Ok, but could I get some guidelines on what we need it to do?" Boss: "Yes, but I don't want anyone to know what we are doing. Then it becomes a design by committee situation where nothing ever gets done." Me: "Yeah, I get that, but it would be really helpful to get the people who need it explain what they need to do with it." Boss: "No! We will design it the way we think people will need to use it and tweak it from there." Me:  Please bear in mind that I have asked on numerous occasions what the goal of the Intranet is and all I get is essentially "We need one and we will figure out the why later." I do not get answers, I just get directives. So, never having done anything with an Intranet whatsoever, is there a good resource that I could look at that gives me some guidelines on questions I should be asking? Are there any recommendations on an all-in-one solution (document management, information sharing, etc) that is free (we have a budget of precisely zero dollars) and has a small learning curve? I mean, hell, I can throw together a basic information page and links to documents, but I'd like to have something with some features that will allow for expansion in the future once I figure out how to use the thing...
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
Cheap, easy, useful. Pick two.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
berzerkmonkey posted:I'm not sure if I should be posting this here or create a new thread, but here goes: GreenNight posted:Cheap, easy, useful. Pick two. Vulture Culture fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
I was discussing intranet software, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
GreenNight posted:I was discussing intranet software, obviously. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
Wiki
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
mewse posted:Wiki
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
You can be like my boss and implement Sharepoint without any training and expect people to just use it because "it's made by Microsoft, how hard can it be".
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
mewse posted:Wiki Misogynist posted:Set up the simplest possible thing that doesn't create recurring maintenance work for you, like a hosted WordPress blog for people to post company news and events. If people use it, they will start coming to you with "hey, can we use the intranet to _____?" questions, and you can either find modules or start building requirements for the next iteration of the intranet. If they don't use it, you've done no more work than necessary. I still need a list of questions I should be asking the powers that be, though. Maybe things will stat coming to mind when I start playing with the software. GreenNight posted:You can be like my boss and implement Sharepoint without any training and expect people to just use it because "it's made by Microsoft, how hard can it be". berzerkmonkey fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
Misogynist posted:Set up the simplest possible thing that doesn't create recurring maintenance work for you, like a hosted WordPress blog for people to post company news and events. If people use it, they will start coming to you with "hey, can we use the intranet to _____?" questions, and you can either find modules or start building requirements for the next iteration of the intranet. If they don't use it, you've done no more work than necessary. We're going to take exactly this route. We've got Confluence setup to house documentation, etc. but I don't want to try to hammer that into being our intranet as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
I built an intranet off the  version of Confluence a couple of jobs ago. 10 users is plenty if you just make the thing viewable by everyone, then have one account per department or whatever to contribute. If it turns out that it's useful then you can move to the paid version.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
Cheradenine posted:M$ Winblowz amirite? Let's get something straight: I'm a Windows Admin, I've done 99% Windows 2003/2008/2012 administration for a decade now, I exclusively use Windows at home, I would turn down an admin job if it was a Unix shop rather than figure out command line syntax all day. And I don't mind that the other admins make fun of Windows admins behind our backs. I'm still not going to let Windows handle DHCP when I have Cisco hardware. Maybe it is harder to administer but the long and short of it is Uptime and not having things automagically gently caress themselves every year or two. I'm sure there's great arguments either way, but I've seen enough bullshit and I'm entitled to my opinion. I've seen servers get viruses, corporate admins reset servers without notifying me, on purpose or by not unchecking a box when installing a program, I've seen windows updates break poo poo, antivirus programs break poo poo, raid recoveries fail... none of that is gonna gently caress me on a switch with a cold standby. I'm the kind of guy who administered my last Windows network with a hash-based whitelist, you bet that was horrifically tedious but I got to laugh from my fort at everyone else getting Cryptolockered. Not on my watch am I gonna have things breaking with a thumb up my rear end; building systems as redundant and failproof for as cheap as possible is my modus operandi. There's a lot of dogpiling here when there's not even that much consensus. If you guys think best practice is letting Server 2012 handle it, that's cool, but I wouldn't trust it even if it were an option for me (which it isn't because my only servers are in Azure and I don't even want to imagine how that is supposed to work over VPN). By the way it was years ago but I did figure out the blue screening on my 2003 server, it was a particular HP Laserjet driver that wasn't leaving any hints in crash logs, but I traced back the start of the crashes to when that one printer was introduced to the environment. Many people have their print server double up as DHCP and they shouldn't have to be loving Sherlock Holmes when things get buggered.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:I wouldn't trust it even if it were an option for me (which it isn't because my only servers are in Azure and I don't even want to imagine how that is supposed to work over VPN). 2x Server 2012 R2 instances running DHCP failover, and IP helper.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:2x Server 2012 R2 instances running DHCP failover, and IP helper. Okay, well, I might look into that. Let's say something wacky happens like oh, say, finance department lets the company credit card expire (like just happened, whups) and so Microsoft shuts down my Azure account without notification. Ordinarily the rest of my network can still function without needing to contact the Azure servers. Can/will the switches be configured to take over DHCP if both 2012 instances can't be contacted?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 12:08 |
|
|
Presumably you could leave the DHCP server configured on the switches but just set the delay to something that would never normally see it do anything, I'm not that familiar with using Cisco switches as DHCP servers outside of using them in a lab in L3 mode to mimic a clients network. Ideally you'd have a DC on-premise though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 01:34
|
|