Or some form of port security to prevent it in the first place (e.g. 802.1x)
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Jonathan Link <[email protected]>wrote: > Seems as if you should have enough evidence to justify the expenditure of > funds for additional wiring drops. > X= Hours lost due to unproductive users, and misallocation of your time. > Y=Cost of expanding cabling plant. > If X>Y you win, pretty cut and dried. > > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I have backed up my words with real world examples. >> >> As I stated before, I have lots of experience with folks creating >> layer 2 loops with small unmanaged switches over the past 9+ years at >> my position. If it costs even one hour of my time tracking these down >> for each incident (and it's usually more than that), the money spent >> is well worth it to both me and the business. >> >> It happens about twice a year, and sometimes more frequently. At a >> fully burdened hourly rate of approximately $75.00/hour just for my >> time, not to mention the time of all of the people affected who can't >> do their jobs for at least an hour at a time, it is stunningly bad >> business *NOT* to have pulled sufficient cable and bought sufficient >> ports to support the requirements of the environment. >> >> Kurt >> >> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 07:57, Andrew S. Baker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>Notice that I did say "Required? Sometimes." >> > And then proceeded to articulate yourself right into a corner. >> > >> >>>You and Andrew, however, sometimes over-interpret my words. >> > Use less words, and use them in the same manner as the rest of the >> planet, >> > and you'll find them harder to "over-interpret"[1]. >> > And back up your words with real-world examples, and others will find >> more >> > opportunity for agreement. >> > >> > ASB (Find me online via About.Me) >> > Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage... >> > >> > [1] I won't even ask... >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Life *is* usually as cut and dried as I make it out to be. You and >> >> Andrew, however, sometimes over-interpret my words. >> >> >> >> Notice that I did say "Required? Sometimes." >> >> >> >> In particular, my time as a sysadmin is almost always worth more than >> >> the difference between a cheap 5/8 port switch and a couple of ports >> >> on, and some cabling to reach, a managed switch. >> >> >> >> Kurt >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 07:15, Jeff Steward <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Life is rarely so cut and dried as you make it out to be. As with >> any >> >> > decision, there are multiple inputs and risk assessments to be made >> and >> >> > sometimes, using an inexpensive unmanaged switch is the right choice. >> >> > -Jeff Steward >> >> > >> >> > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Required? Sometimes. >> >> >> >> >> >> More expensive up front? Yes. >> >> >> >> >> >> Valid or reasonable? I disagree. >> >> >> >> >> >> IMHO, being forced to use these tiny unmanaged switches shows a >> >> >> decided lack of foresight on someone's part, and a lack of >> >> >> understanding of their larger costs. >> >> >> >> >> >> Unless, perhaps, you're temporizing until a complete wireless >> solution >> >> >> is being readied. :) >> >> >> >> >> >> Kurt >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 02:59, Andrew S. Baker <[email protected]> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > "Install extra cabling" is a solution that has greater expense, >> and >> >> >> > requires >> >> >> > far more permission that "install unmanaged switch" in most >> >> >> > circumstances. >> >> >> > There are plenty of valid scenarios where you will not have the >> >> >> > opportunity >> >> >> > to add more network drops to a location, and for which the >> temporary >> >> >> > or >> >> >> > permanent deployment of unmanaged switches will be entirely >> >> >> > reasonable. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > ASB (Find me online via About.Me) >> >> >> > Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage... >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 10:49 PM, James Hill >> >> >> > <[email protected]> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm with Kurt. Unmanaged switches are just trouble. Do it >> properly >> >> >> >> and >> >> >> >> install extra cabling. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Unmanaged switches have a habit of multiplying. I've been caught >> >> >> >> out >> >> >> >> one >> >> >> >> too many times by a hidden one under a desk somewhere, usually >> when >> >> >> >> imaging >> >> >> >> an entire floor with multicast or something when I don't have the >> >> >> >> time >> >> >> >> for >> >> >> >> trouble. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I've even seen one of these switches go nuts and flood a core >> switch >> >> >> >> so >> >> >> >> much it brought the network to its knees. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> >> From: Kurt Buff [mailto:[email protected]] >> >> >> >> Sent: Sunday, 6 February 2011 5:19 AM >> >> >> >> To: NT System Admin Issues >> >> >> >> Subject: Re: OT: desktop network switches >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It's not just one mistake. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I don't know what it is about my user population, but at least a >> >> >> >> couple >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> times a year, and sometimes more often, I have to go chasing down >> >> >> >> some >> >> >> >> idiot >> >> >> >> (usually a software developer or hardware engineer) who has >> >> >> >> connected a >> >> >> >> little switch to itself, or to another little switch. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm really tired of it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Kurt >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 05:47, Ray <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > So because someone made a mistake you're condemning using them? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> >> >> >> > From: Kurt Buff [mailto:[email protected]] >> >> >> >> > Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 1:45 PM >> >> >> >> > To: NT System Admin Issues >> >> >> >> > Subject: Re: OT: desktop network switches >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Don't. Just don't. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Pull another run of cable if you have to. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Desktop switches are just wrong. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > I speak from much experience here. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Just last month, we shuffled a bunch of folks around, and the >> >> >> >> > facilities >> >> >> >> > guy was moving PCs and printers, and noticed that there was a >> >> >> >> > loose >> >> >> >> > cable >> >> >> >> > attached to a 5-port switch. So, not knowing what else to do >> with >> >> >> >> > it, >> >> >> >> > he >> >> >> >> > plugged it into the 5 port switch. Which meant that both ends >> of >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> > cable >> >> >> >> > were in the same dumb, unmanaged, switch. >> >> >> >> > That's your basic layer2 loop, right there. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > It killed performance for lots of people, until I tracked it >> down. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > I've had this happen so many times with stupid 5 and 8 port >> >> >> >> > switches >> >> >> >> > that if I could rip them all out I would do so in less time >> than >> >> >> >> > it >> >> >> >> > takes to >> >> >> >> > write about it. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > But, we now have so many of them, because our wiring is so >> sparse, >> >> >> >> > that >> >> >> >> > I can't. Yet. It's a major line item in the IT CAPEX budget for >> >> >> >> > next >> >> >> >> > year. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Kurt >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:00, John Aldrich >> >> >> >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> One of my users just claimed an unused laser printer for his >> >> >> >> >> office >> >> >> >> >> (Acct. >> >> >> >> >> Manager) that has a network port on it as well as the usual >> USB. >> >> >> >> >> He'd >> >> >> >> >> like to be able to network it so he can print to it from the >> >> >> >> >> AS/400. >> >> >> >> >> What do you guys recommend for a small (4-5 port) network >> switch? >> >> >> >> >> To anyone who wants to know, this is for real, looking for >> >> >> >> >> recommendations for a RIGHT NOW purchase, not "next time." :-) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks! >> > >> > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ >> > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ >> > >> > --- >> > To manage subscriptions click here: >> > http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ >> > or send an email to [email protected] >> > with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin >> >> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ >> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ >> >> --- >> To manage subscriptions click here: >> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ >> or send an email to [email protected] >> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin >> >> > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > --- > To manage subscriptions click here: > http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ > or send an email to [email protected] > with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to [email protected] with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
