[146927] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Network device command line interfaces
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steve Gibbard)
Mon Nov 28 12:48:45 2011
From: Steve Gibbard <scg@gibbard.org>
In-Reply-To: <CADb+6TArtwFG=QBmucxiUDnh7CUN54YNmEZMA5Tg5B3KUz+a8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 09:47:34 -0800
To: Joel Maslak <jmaslak@antelope.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
What this really comes down to, I think, is figuring out how your "gut =
level" concerns fit into the big picture, and to then put that into =
terms that the people responsible for the big picture can use to make a =
good decision.
Finances do matter. Getting your employer to spend money it doesn't =
have to on network equipment generally means there's less money =
available to spend on other things that might matter, like making your =
network bigger, hiring people to help you, or even keeping you employed. =
If you want to spend more on equipment than the bare minimum, you ought =
to have a reason. To get anybody else to come to the same conclusion, =
you ought to be able to explain that reason.
That said, I think it's valid to buy something because you're =
comfortable with it, and valid to not buy something because you're not =
comfortable with it. "I don't want to buy new device X because I don't =
want to have to learn how to use it" sounds lazy, but most of us are =
busy, and if the device you're comfortable with will do the job for an =
affordable price, it's generally good not to create extra work for =
yourself.
Saying "we shouldn't do that because I don't know how" is hard. It may =
be because something is new and complicated, and nobody has experience =
with it. Or it may be because you're not familiar with it when lots of =
other people are. You may have a different specialty, or it may be =
because you're less experienced than the people they could have hired if =
they'd paid or shopped around more. But, your expertise or lack thereof =
is a legitimate thing to take into account when making decisions, as is =
the likely expertise of people who will have to manage the system in the =
future.
Unfamiliar network equipment is expensive to manage, whether the CLI is =
well done or not. Even in a one person shop, you won't yet have =
encountered the device's pitfalls -- its easily circumventable bugs, the =
configurations that seem intuitive but aren't, etc. It's going to take =
you longer to design and configure your networks, and you're going to =
create problems by doing the wrong thing more often. You're probably =
going cause some outages, or even buy equipment and then find that you =
missed something and need to buy something else. If you work with a =
large team, and maybe even have NOC people working the night shift in =
another location supporting the thing, it gets worse. All those people =
have to be trained on the new device, and come up to speed on it. =20
It's also good to understand the reliability requirements for something =
you're building. We don't have licensing requirements for Network =
Engineers, but some other more established engineering professions do. =
If a structural engineer signs off on a building despite being =
unfamiliar with some aspect of the construction technology and the =
building collapses, that can be career ending.
Internet networks that have become pretty important too. If you're =
building a network where a failure will cause a heart attack victim to =
not be able to call 911 from their VOIP phone, it isn't good enough to =
say "I've never seen this piece of equipment but I don't have any reason =
to think it won't work." If you're building a network to connect some =
office PCs, the stakes are probably lower.
And, of course, there's also the option of learning about unfamiliar =
technology. Play with it in your lab. Put it in a peripheral site that =
can fail without causing too many problems. Get your NOC staff familiar =
with it. And maybe, in the end, you'll find that you actually like it. =
That it does something your old hardware doesn't. That cheap hardware =
lets you afford a level of redundancy, and thus reliability, that was =
simply unaffordable with you're previously preferred equipment.
But that testing and familiarity has a cost, just as buying expensive =
equipment does, and just as running unfamiliar equipment does. It's a =
matter of balancing it all out, and coming to an agreement with your =
management on what the best strategy is.
-Steve
On Nov 25, 2011, at 8:15 AM, Joel Maslak wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Robert Bonomi =
<bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com>wrote:
>=20
>=20
>> The trick to deailing with this as a propellorhead[sic] is to include =
a
>> *monetized* estimate of the increased manpower OPEX of using the 'dog =
to
>> work with' box. And a TCOS figure over the projected lifetime of the
>> units. No need to 'fight' with management about it, just understand
>> 'how' they make the decisions, and give them the informatin they =
need
>> to make the decision come out 'your way'.
>>=20
>=20
> I'd say that the ethical thing to do is to give them the information =
they
> need to make a decision, not to get it your way. I see, for instance,
> people buying local closet switches from brand A when brand B is much, =
much
> cheaper (but lacks the prestige of brand A), had a perfectly workable
> management interface, and will perform identically, with similar =
support
> offered by both vendors. But they are an ACNA or whatever, or they've =
just
> heard of (insert brand here), so they buy it. Because it's easy and
> familiar.
>=20
> It's also possible that a web managed switch (which I despise) might
> actually be the right choice for a business - because factors other =
than a
> technologist's distaste might be important.
>=20
> Part of being ethical (and NOT like the business people we might all
> despise!) is to be honest. So we don't compare brand A to brand B
> unfairly. We don't inflate the cost of brand B by adding brand B's
> management infrastructure to the cost when we darn well know we just =
will
> need a minor tweak to our scripts that can already manage brand A. =
That
> sort of thing.
>=20
> I generally agree with what Robert said: It's about what makes sense =
to the
> business. If operating expenses will increase ("Well have to grow
> headcount by 3 to support this"), then bring that up. A caution =
though:
> "Takes less effort to run" doesn't equate to dollars (the question a =
former
> manager would ask me when I tried that line was, "So who do you think =
we
> should lay off then to get the dollar savings?" Fortunately he was a =
good
> manager who wasn't serious, but was rather trying to get me to think =
about
> what I'm saying). I like paychecks, which is why I work for a living =
-
> it's about the dollars. So it's not unreasonable for my management to =
also
> care about the money (since it's a key motivation for myself, after =
all!).
> Yes, I'm fortunate to do a job I love and get paid for it at the same =
time.
>=20
> I can say, for a CUI interface, operations over low-speed links =
(wireless
> VPN when I'm away from the office and in a bad cell zone, for =
instance) is
> likely important. So is ability to script common tasks to allow =
people
> like the help desk to do their jobs at low risk. Flexibility is also
> important - when I'm stuck with this piece of gear (which is shiny =
today)
> in 5-7 years, when it's not so shiny, is it going to have flexibility =
to
> last a bit longer if the business needs to conserve cash - or will a =
minor
> change in how we do business make this thing functionally obsolete?
>=20
> Relating to the discussion on the tier 1 mentor thread, someone who =
wants
> to go far in networking won't be married to a particular vendor or way =
of
> doing things. They'll excel and find ways to overcome challenges,
> including less than perfect equipment, that they might have to deal =
with.
> They'll do so in a way that makes the customer and their own =
management
> happy. A highly paid network engineer who complains about work being
> difficult probably won't do that. One that finds a $500 replacement =
for a
> $5000 router probably will stick around, provided they can actually =
deliver
> what they promised (the guy that puts the $500 replacement in only to =
have
> to replace it in a year with a $5000 router again won't go far, so be
> careful! And you better have figured in the real costs of running a =
network
> with $500 routers, not just the cost of the router).
