Network device command line interfaces

Fri Nov 25 16:15:28 UTC 2011

On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Robert Bonomi <bonomi at mail.r-bonomi.com>wrote:

> 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'.
>

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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).