John Brandis wrote: > > I love the book, which is why I photo-copied it twice... > > Just joking. Good book, but it still costs to much. I wonder if > the author > would just send me a copy out of the goodness of her heart. I > also wonder > what Santa Clause did with my sports car that I requested last > year...
The publisher sets the price and gobbles up over 85% of the profit. In the future maybe my work will be open source! :-) I would send you a copy if I had any extras, but I don't, alas. Some publishers (not all) are realizing that books are too expensive and moving toward shorter and less expensive ones, by the way. There's some hope for the future. Priscilla > > -----Original Message----- > From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, 11 March 2003 10:17 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Network Design - What Priscilla did NOT cover > [7:64959] > > > OK, I've seen enough of this inaccurate title for a thread. > > Of course Top-Down Network Design covers Layer 8 and above > issues. It's a > main focus of the first chapter and one of the reasons the book > has done so > well. One of my goals was to help newbies, especially, and also > the guys > (and yes, it's mostly guys who think this way! ;-) who assume > network design > is a matter of selecting speeds and feeds and cool devices. > > Chuck confirms that the hardest challenges are dealing with > difficult design > customers who won't tell you the entire story either because of > "politics" > or because they don't the entire story and don't want to look > stupd, have > ridciulous budgets but won't make any trade-offs, have biases > for certain > technologies for no technical reason, etc. Those are all > discussed in > Top-Down Network Design. > > Of course, reading about it in a book and encountering it for > real are two > different things. Maybe that's why Chuck forgot that it's in > the book. Well, > I know he was also just trying to be funny, but the inaccuracy > of the thread > title bugs me. @:-) > > Of course, Oscar Wilde did say, "There's no such thing as bad > press." > > Priscilla > > > John Neiberger wrote: > > > > Chuck, > > > > Your story illustrates why I wouldn't make a good consultant. > > In reading your story I found several points where I would > have > > walked out, but only after shoving Tab A (the scope of work) > up > > that guys Slot A. :-) Figuratively speaking, of course. > > > > John > > > > >>> Scott Roberts 3/10/03 2:52:54 PM >>> > > wow, I've never worked on such a large order, but the RFPs > I've > > designed out have never been this much of a joke. it seems > that the IT > > staff of this > > company had no clue what they wanted or needed and decided to > > get some free > > advice! > > > > the only similair scenario I can mention is when a small > private > > school was looking to upgrade their network to gigabit (yet > never > > fully utilized the > > old FE) and were shocked at the cost of the equipment. they > > dropped the > > whole upgrade totally at that point. > > > > I'm interested in hearing if any others have seen such a poor > of a > > 'scope of work' put out before? > > > > scott > > > > ""Symon Thurlow"" wrote in message > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Yikes! You must have big plums to persist with a customer > > like that. > > > > > > It sounds like a disaster waiting to happen! > > > > > > Symon > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: The Long and Winding Road > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: 08 March 2003 19:44 > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Network Design - What Priscilla did NOT cover in > her > > book: WAS > > > [7:64842] > > > > > > > > > ""Symon Thurlow"" wrote in message > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Hey Chuck, > > > > > > > > How did that big design go, the one you mentioned on the > > list a few > > > > months ago? > > > > > > > > Symon > > > > > > You mean the Never Ending Design? The Nightmare before the > > CCIE Lab? > > > > > > Here is a brief rundown. I will say in advance that as all > of > > you who > > > work in the real world with real world management, real > world > > customers, > > > and real world situations already know, the real work is at > > layers 8,9, > > > and 10. > > > > > > Project Summary: large organization, 2000+ employees, 10,000 > > data ports, > > > 3 dozen locations, with each location being a campus of > > several > > > buildings or several floors within buildings. The project > RFP > > called for > > > a complete forklift of the existing infrastructure - > routers, > > switches, > > > PBX. It also called for wireless for voice and data. The > > project goal > > > was to create a network fully capable of providing seamless > > integrated > > > services for data, voice, and video. Oh yes, there was a > > three week > > > turnaround deadline for the response, and there was no > > flexibility in > > > this. Meet the customer date or lose the opportunity. On top > > of that, as > > > is typical with most RFP's, all questions are to be > submitted > > in > > > writing, and all responses go to all bidders. > > > > > > Clues that something is strange: > > > > > > 1) for any wireless response this complex, detailed site > > surveys are > > > required. there is not time to do this. > > > > > > answer: well then just do a site survey. besides, we have > > aerial > > > photographs of all of our locations posted on our web site. > > you can use > > > those to determine what you need. > > > > > > 2) you're RFP provides numbers of IDF's in each location and > > total > > > number of ports required. e.g. site X has 7 IDF's and 257 > > data ports. do > > > you have detail as to how many data ports are in each > > specific closet? > > > > > > answer: use an average, or come out here and do a site > survey > > and figure > > > it out for yourself. > > > > > > 3) you're RFP calls for L3 switching in each and every > > closet. Is this > > > necessary, given that there is only a single ingress/egress, > > and that > > > all sites are hub and spoke? plus L3 is more expensive, and > > I'm not sure > > > there is anything to gain. > > > > > > answer: we want L3 everywhere. are you saying your ( Cisco ) > > equipment > > > does not do L3? > > > > > > Customer: oh by the way, we will be opening a new location > > sometime in > > > the next 18 months. I want you to include that location in > > this > > > response. > > > > > > 4) how many closets? how many phones? how many data ports? > > > > > > answer: just take locations a,b, and c, and average those > out > > to get the > > > numbers. > > > > > > These were the major things, and should give you a pretty > > good idea of > > > the upper layer issues. > > > > > > Well, I work my ass off to meet the deadlines. We and a > > couple of other > > > vendors respond. The presentation meeting takes place with > > all vendors > > > in the same room at the same time. Oh joy, but at least we > > can see > > > eachothers' hands. > > > > > > All vendors come back with total cost in the 8-9 million > > range. > > > > > > Now the customer reveals that his budget is 5 million. This > > is something > > > that was asked, and which the customer refused to discuss > > previously. I > > > should add that as this is a non profit organization, and > > some of the > > > funding is from grant money with particular restrictions, > > this is not as > > > straightforward in terms of budget as might first appear. > The > > grants > > > will pay for some types of equipment and services, but not > > others. The 5 > > > mil is for a "complete package" including data circuits, all > > equipment, > > > and all services. so subtract the total 5 year cost of data > > circuits > > > from that 5 mil. divvy up what's left between what the > grants > > will buy > > > and what the customer himself will buy. > > > > > > OK, so now we have to scramble. The customer finally gets a > > clue that > > > things cost money, and the more you want, the more you have > > to pay. So - > > > trim your proposals, and get back with just what is required > > for end to > > > end voice over IP plus new WAN equipment. No wireless. No > new > > switches > > > other than those needed to directly support the IP > telephones. > > > > > > back to the drawing board. All non-phone switches are out. > > all wireless > > > is out. > > > > > > next big problem. the customer RFP states specifically that > > there are > > > numbers of site with poor wiring, and inadequate equipment. > > There are > > > express concerns with the ability of existing > infrastructures > > to handle > > > existing loads, let alone adding unified messaging to the > > mix. we > > > suggest using a voicemail only solution. the customer goes > > into > > > apoplexy. my network is my business, not yours. well, what > if > > > performance suffers and you end up with unhappy and > > complaining users. > > > well that's my responsibility and none of your business. > > > > > > OK. we all know what's gonna happen, but ok. > > > > > > In the mean time, one of my fellow workers is doing physical > > site > > > surveys. Among the things he discovers is an additional 21 > > data closets > > > that the customer was unaware of. the numbers of data > closets > > as > > > expressed in the RFP is wrong. Many sites have one or two > > fewer. Other > > > sites have as many as 6 or 7 more. > > > > > > scramble again to change the design to reflect this.all the > > time under > > > this damn budget restriction. The customer will not hear of > > doing this > > > over a couple of years, obtaining addition grant many in > > future funding > > > periods. the customer will not hear of further reductions. > > The customer > > > is pissed that I have to resort to single routers in many > > locations, > > > routers which will serve as PSTN failover, PSTN gateways, > and > > WAN > > > routing all in one box. The customer says that Cisco told > > them that > > > AVVID is a redundant solution and he wants redundancy. I > > reply that I > > > have to be concerned with two things - ability of the router > > to handle > > > the peak load demands for voice and data, and the budget, > > which is a > > > bummer. I say I can go cheaper, but then I risk having to up > > the router > > > later if it proves inadequate. > > > > > > Response: I'm buying a managed solution, and if equipment > > proves > > > inadequate, you will replace it at no cost to me. > > > > > > Does this customer scare you? He sure scares me. > > > > > > Notice that all of the discussion from the customer side has > > little to > > > do with needs and requirements, and everything to do with > > wants and > > > demands. Notice too the responsibility issue. > > > > > > In any case, as it stands today, a couple of design revision > > later, we > > > have something that will work. I am not comfortable with the > > lack of > > > failover for the Unity box, supporting over 2,000 voice > > mailboxes. I am > > > not comfortable with the LAN issue, because I am still > > responsible for > > > the WAN and I have no control over the customer LAN. Worse > of > > all, I > > > have no confidence that this customer really will accept > > responsibility > > > for the things he said were none of my business. I see a > > major disaster > > > coming down the road. > > > > > > Oh - I see I haven't even mentioned the phones, the phone > > requirements, > > > and what was eventually the compromise there. > > > > > > On the other hand, the commission for this sale will be > > decent :-> > > > ============================================= > > > > > > This email has been content filtered and > > > subject to spam filtering. If you consider > > > this email is unsolicited please forward > > > the email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > > > request that the sender's domain be > > > blocked from sending any further emails. > > > > > > ============================================= > ********************************************************************** > > visit http://www.solution6.com > > UK Customers - http://www.solution6.co.uk > > ********************************************************************** > > The Solution 6 Head Office and NSW Branch has moved premises. > Please make sure you have updated your records with our new > details. > > Level 14, 383 Kent Street, Sydney NSW 2000. > > General Phone: 61 2 9278 0666 > > General Fax: 61 2 9278 0555 > > ********************************************************************** > > This email message (and attachments) may contain information > that is confidential to Solution 6. If you are not the intended > recipient you cannot use, distribute or copy the message or > attachments. In such a case, please notify the sender by > return email immediately and erase all copies of the message > and attachments. Opinions, conclusions and other information > in this message and attachments that do not relate to the > official business of Solution 6 are neither given nor endorsed > by it. > > ********************************************************************* > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=65058&t=64959 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
