Ah yes, the financial industry...I'm glad someone else can feel my pain. I've been consulting in this industry for the last five years and let me say that I'm not surprised by too much anymore.
I actually had the pleasure of meeting the authors of the Advanced IP Network Design book when they were writing it. Our paths in life crossed because of a CAP case I had open with one of my previous clients (this is circa 1998). My knowledge if IP routing (EIGRP specifically) was greatly enhanced after a couple of days at the white board with them. Personally, I don't think you could do an "either-or" comparison between their book and the Top-Down Net. Design; it's more of an AND. If only my client had gained as much from the meeting as I did... We implemented the "short-term band-aids" to achieve stability but I couldn't get them to address the root cause of their problem - a bad network design...but I digress. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Chuck Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 3:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Network Design... Hmmm [7:44417] obviously you've never worked in a brokerage firm.... ;-> my point being that you can get away with a lot, up to a certain point. When that point is reached, you can throw hardware and/or bandwidth at the thing, and buy some more time. Maybe a lot of time. Or you start over, and do things right, from the start. I would suggest that there are special cases even in the most well designed and planned networks, where there are islands of chaos. I agree that there is nothing like having whomever tell you what the solution is, rather than tell you the problem. We need a T1. We need a P5 machine. We need more RAM. Whatever. Working for whom I work for these days, the answer is always "yes, sir. Sign right here" ;-> ""Steve Watson"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I was speaking in general terms. While it is conceivable to build a > network without customer requirements and (to a degree) it will be > functional, the network has no room for growth and more than likely will > be hard to manage. The buzzwords scalability and efficiency come to > mind. > > The best place to start (correction the ONLY place to start) is to > define the customer's requirements (now and for the 18 - 24 months) so > you design and implement a viable solution that has room to grow. > > I have done, in the past, what you have mentioned below and were met > with the same frustration you were (inefficiency and network loading > problems). That's why I tell my customers; don't tell me you need a T-1 > (nowadays everybody wants a DS3) tell me what will ride this circuit and > we will do an analysis of bandwidth to determine what is best... yada.. > yada.. yada.. > > Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > Chuck > Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 12:22 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Network Design... Hmmm [7:44417] > > ""Steve Watson"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > This was not a comparison of network design methodologies, it was mean > > to be humorous (I totally agree with the top down process). The idea > of > > "build a network and they will come" simply does not work! > > > CL: au contraire, mon ami! I give you the small brokerage firm I used to > work for. Filled with unsophisticated users. When I arrived there was no > WAN > and no LAN to speak of - the so called LAN was dictated by the quote > service > vendor. > > I put in a real LAN with e-mail. That took off like crazy. > > I put in a real WAN with the branches able to send e-mail to eachother, > and > that took off even crazier. > > I put in an internet connection, and sure there was the usual crap with > people checking out the adult entertainment, but you know, I had guys > who > could prior to my arrival couldn't tun their computers on going out and > finding some realy nice investment sites and services that helped them > tremendously in their business. > > At the time of my leaving, the LAN./WAM was starting to show signs of > stress. In the course of my cetification pursuit, I have learned all the > things I did wrong. But I gotta say, you have to start someplace, and it > remains true that if the facilities exist, the user community will find > a > lot of ways to use those facilities. > > > > > > > > The context of the other book was that no network will function > properly > > if Layer 1 is not designed correctly. > > > > BTW, how many is too many? :-) > > > > Steve > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf > Of > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > > Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 2:04 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Network Design... Hmmm [7:44417] > > > > At 08:49 PM 5/17/02, Steve Watson wrote: > > >I am reading Priscilla's book "Top Down Network Design" for the > second > > >time for a refresher and decided to hit the pool after I got home. > > > > Thanks for reading Top-Down Network Design. I hope you had a nice swim > > and > > didn't drink too many beers at the pool. ;-) > > > > >On > > >the way out I looked on my book shelf and saw "Advanced IP Network > > >Design" that I haven't had a chance to look at yet. So I took it to > the > > >pool with me. When lo and behold, what did I read on page 5, "The > best > > >place to start when designing a network is at the bottom". > > > > Out of context, this is completely meaningless. What else does it say? > > > > > > > > > > >Food for thought :-) > > > > > > > > > > > >Steve > > ________________________ > > > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > > http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44515&t=44417 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
