How does one do so many technologies? really?

itdaddy

what makes me upset is you have to know so much and get paid 150k and that is it.
I know how much study and work experience it takes to get to this level. Where do yu get
this much experience, so now you have to be CCNA juniper and CCIE cisco with checkpoint?
how?

[h=3] Security Network Engineer - Immediate Start[/h] Australian JobSearch - Sydney, NSW
Follow
22 hours ago from Australian JobSearch



[h=3]Description[/h]
<]¬CDATA¬
Security Engineer Contract - Immediate Start
12 month fixed term - CBD Location
Our client is one of Australia's leading financial services providers. They have built a strong and significant reputation in the banking arena. This is a senior position within an existing team.
You will be contracting to this organisation to provide your expertise with systems security.
SECURITY ENGINEER
The engineers will be required to assist with the design, build/configuration, rack and stack and potentially ongoing support of kit for the following vendors:
Juniper

F5
Checkpoint
Cisco Nexus
Technically, we're looking for a strong mix of the following essential technologies within the security role:
Juniper Firewalls
Nortel routing and switching experience
Cisco routing and switching experience
Other security technologies and products across an enterprise scale
Operating System Security experience (Unix, Linux, Sun, Microsoft)
Load balancing
We would also expect the successful applicant to be suitably Security Certified. Cisco certs to CCIE would be an advantage.
If you can combine the above technical abilities with a strong work ethic, a 5 (ish) year security background, great presentation and communication skills, and a professional approach to both work and clients alike this IS the opportunity you have been looking for.
To be considered for this opportunity please submit your resume ASAP for a potential immediate start.
Due to current response rates, ONLY SHORT LISTED CANDIDATES WILL BE CONTACTED. Thankyou.
View Vacancy ||> [h=3]Details[/h]
Location: NSW - SYDNEY
Work type: Casual position
Tenancy: Permanent, 6+ months
Number of positions: 1



Source: Public Provider
Job ID: 2245852710
Last modified: 08 May 2014
Employer reference: 9736209





Apply Now
Save Job

SteveO86

Comes over time I would say, along working in different environments. Usually when took a new position a new technology would present itself, no two networks are the same.

That looks similiar to the enviornment I am in now. F5, Nexus, Juniper, CheckPoint, ASA, Wireless, Route/Switch, etc.

Remember they don't really tell you to what extent they want you be be knowledgable in.
F5 for example could mean a host of different products.
Same with Checkpoint and Nexus.

It's not so much about having a certificate but knowing the underlining technologies and how each vendor implements it. I've got a few hundred Juniper's running, and multiple different F5 & Checkpoint clusters running, I can navigate them fairly well and I am not certified in any of those vendors.


Also, these job posting's are usually pipe dreams anyway just an excuse to not pay someone at the higher bracket that is advertised.

shodown

You can know one technology really well. I put about 90 percent of my effort into cisco voice. I can do Call manager, Unity, UCCX, a bit of UCCE, and CVP, and can write basic Java for the scripting. I spend the other 10 percent of VMware and UCS servers. I can get command a nice salary for knowing one technology so deep.

egrizzly

If it was easy anybody would do it. plus, if you think CCIE and all the technologies are hard, think about what specialists like physicists and astronauts have to learn. If the passion is there, trust me, all the other things you need to get it done will punch through. The trick is....the passion has to be there.

EdTheLad

egrizzly wrote: »

If you think CCIE and all the technologies are hard, think about what specialists like physicists and astronauts have to learn.

I doubt they have to learn as much in so much detail. Also i doubt that their study manuals are as inaccurate as ours.

itdaddy

Originally Posted by egrizzly If you think CCIE and all the technologies are hard, think about what specialists like physicists and astronauts have to learn.
I doubt they have to learn as much in so much detail. Also i doubt that their study manuals are as inaccurate as ours.

I have to a agree. I took physics I and II and Chem and calc I and II for engineers. And I agree, net engineering is much more detailed...

thanks guy seems true...

gorebrush

I used to be fairly hot with Windows Domains. In fact, I still retain most of my knowlege, despite no longer managing Windows Servers, at least in a professional capacity since 2010.

I'm fairly hot with Cisco now as I'm in CCIE study mode. I'm sure I could do whatever the new MCSE is relatively quickly after it too.

It takes time to be expert at anything, but I think it takes someone with a lot of brains to be *really* good at 2/more technologies.

Iristheangel

itdaddy wrote: »

I have to a agree. I took physics I and II and Chem and calc I and II for engineers. And I agree, net engineering is much more detailed...

thanks guy seems true...

While I do believe we have an incredibly difficult job to keep up to date and always learn new technologies, I don't believe what we do is anywhere near as difficult as a BS, MS or Ph.d from Caltech in physics.

As far as the job posting, sounds realistic. They probably don't require an IE level in each vendor's technology and there is probably a great degree of wiggle room if you don't have experience in certain vendor technologies. Most of the time the job posting is a "wishlist" of what they wished the candidate had

itdaddy

Iristheangel


the reason I said that was because in math and science there I a lot of overlap. But a person in chem physics or math or even progammin has to really live and breath this stuff our job in IT so many technologies always changing. Just look at 2003 exchange to 2010 Wayyyy different big time. one day you are here the next you are out of date where is math and chem or physics, it never changes that much if you think about it, but every 3-5 years our field is changing from so many things. look at cisco now going virtual sucks for us home labbers. I donteven know my future I cisco anymore. my home lab maynot cut it anymore higher than ccnp r/s I wish I knew what future holds for cisco engineers.I mean home study looks like on way out and forcing us to take expensive bootcamps schools???

fredrikjj

itdaddy wrote: »

look at cisco now going virtual sucks for us home labbers. I donteven know my future I cisco anymore. my home lab maynot cut it anymore higher than ccnp r/s I wish I knew what future holds for cisco engineers.I mean home study looks like on way out and forcing us to take expensive bootcamps schools???

Yes, firing up a dozen routers on your home PC instead of having to deal with the capex and opex of running a datacenter in your bedroom sure seems like a terrible thing

chopsticks

I think this is norm for many who will look upon and expect IT professional to know almost many technologies out there, well like the expert below

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

shodown

ITDaddy


you are panicking for no reason. Yes cisco is going virtual for how they do things, but how many routers will you see virtual in production? Not many at time time, and you still have to get on them and configure them the same way you would any router.

Also if your at the CCNA level there is no need for you to worry about code on the IOS or how cisco is doing whatever they are doing this year. Your focus right now should be learning the technology. BGP, OSPF and so on have not changed much in the past 20+ years. Some changes, but not many. When you understand the underlying technologies then you don't worry about how this box works or how that box works. There will be some differences, but at the end of the day OSPF have x amount of LSA's, BGP local preference is based on the highest number. This is what determines what makes a good engineer if you understand the UNDERLYING TECHNOLOGY. Not the box.


With that being said. Changes are on the horizon with SDN and so on, but now is the time to just be aware of it, and understand the tide may shift in 10 years, but for now the core technologies need to be understood by anyone looking for a networking career.

gorebrush

^^^ - quite right.

Cisco virtualising the lab is the best piece of news I took away from the v5 announcement. Instead of buying hardware (which I unfortunately did), particularly switches because it is not easy to get the right ones - should not be the point of an engineer. I shouldn't be certified an expert just because I know all the nuances of one particular piece of equipment. And while 3550/3560's are rife throughout the enterprise - there are other devices that any good network engineer will have to operate. It doesn't make sense that we have to deal with just how a 3550 does QoS. Just last night I was troubleshooting a 6500 - which has it's own little foibles too.

Thankfully that one was running IOS but I digress. My point is - as shodown as already very well explained - we shouldn't be platform experts, we need to be technology experts, being able to go into any company and be able to effectively and efficiently troubleshoot the underlying topology.

And while CML isn't out yet, there are plenty of virtualised options out there for all of us, from IOSv, IOU/IOL, GNS, CSR1000v - to learn the topolgies I think any of these solutions are just fine - personally it's probably down to bugs and personal preference that will win out.

IOU and IOSv seem my choices at the moment, if only because the CSR demands so much memory. Whilst on the other hand I could run IOU even on my i5 laptop (8GB RAM.... plenty) which means mobile labbing is possible. I have remote access to my lab infrastructure, but there's no excuse.

I've got a load of hardware I may get rid of now though

itdaddy

okay okay....I kind of saw that coming but how much is cisco's VIRL? and are they going to charge per ios? I mean yeah
I am run the IOU it just seem all over network engineers. Just look at programmers. I agree our focus as engineers should be on the programming the network and have the hardware just be there for those who study it...I do see some hope
since a home lab may need to get bigger and the way to help us is to go virtual. I do see that...

xnx

I'm sorry but network engineering does NOT compare to physics in any way, even if you're an IP design engineer you can't really compare yourself to someone with a pHD in Maths / Physics from a good university.

Also how about the skilled programmers that wrote parts of Cisco IOS, I know a senior lecturer who worked at Microsoft and was involved on Cisco IOS programming / design in the pre 2000 era..

EMcCaleb

xnx wrote: »

I'm sorry but network engineering does NOT compare to physics in any way, even if you're an IP design engineer you can't really compare yourself to someone with a pHD in Maths / Physics from a good university.

Also how about the skilled programmers that wrote parts of Cisco IOS, I know a senior lecturer who worked at Microsoft and was involved on Cisco IOS programming / design in the pre 2000 era..

Isn't your educational track separate from your professional? When you say network engineering doesn't compare to someone with a PhD in math or physics you're combining two totally separate topics. There are network engineers who are also PHd's in Math/Physics/Computer Science/ Electrical Engineering etc.

In fact, Bruce Caslow is not just a CCIE but a JD. Shenghua Li is a CCIE and has a PHd in math. Petr Lapukov who teaches at INE has a PhD in math and is a quad CCIE.

There are MANY other examples. Look at the contributors to NANOG or IEEE. It's filled with Network Engineers with PHds from every discipline.

Most good network engineers are very math oriented. They are not disparate disciplines.

**Edit: I didn't want to list any CCIE/Network Engineers without mentioning Dr Peter Welcher. He's one of the real grandfathers of network engineering and trained a ton of the early guys. His PHd is also in math and from MIT.

gorebrush

As much as SDN will change the way we all work as network engineers - the point is, we'll still need network engineers. You still need someone who understands how networks actually work - be it SDN programmed or not.

fredrikjj

gorebrush wrote: »

As much as SDN will change the way we all work as network engineers - the point is, we'll still need network engineers. You still need someone who understands how networks actually work - be it SDN programmed or not.

SDN seems most disruptive to entry/mid level positions. A few years ago I worked at a fairly large university with at least 500 switches, probably more. The environment was also quite dynamic and required daily configuration changes to satisfy the various policy requirements involved in people moving around between buildings and stuff like that. In terms of volume, the most common tasks were configuring vlans, physically connecting switch port to patch panels, and deploying new switches. The network team had like 8 people, where 3-4 were low level grunts like myself who did all that less interesting stuff. It seems quite possible that the kind of job I had will simply disappear and be replaced automated solutions. As that happens, and before everyone is fully aware and have adjusted their expectations to of this new reality, there could be a number of people who will not be able to find work in the networking industry like they could before.

itdaddy

XNX,
you are right. Like said, math and physics don't change. where as network engineering changes every 3-5 years.
we have it harder..I took all first 2 year engineering math, phy, chem, loved it.
but all you need it pad and paper hahhah with us you need devices and I love programming. I don't envy programmers
today you must learn like 3-4 languages plus EDIs

fredrikjj

itdaddy wrote: »

XNX,
Like said, math and physics don't change. where as network engineering changes every 3-5 years.

The TCP/IP stack is what, 30 years old? OSPF and BGP are both 20 years old, and build upon even older protocols. STP is 30 years old? IPv6, 15 years old? Ethernet is ancient. I haven't looked any of this up so it may or may not be accurate, but the idea that network engineering changes every 3-5 years is just not true*. New things are added and some old things become obsolete, but it's a gradual process.

*At least not historically. However, it's obviously dangerous to use historical data in an attempt to predict the future.

xnx

What I was getting at is that you can make a physicist / mathematician a network engineer but not always vice versa, disciplines like that require you to have been born naturally gifted.

I'm not trying to put network engineering down but i'd prefer to solve a complex routing problem rather than solve differential equations etc.. Just my personal opinion.

Now that i'm finishing university I can't wait to study and work in networking / windows administration..

Iristheangel

Agree with Fredrikjj. If you look at most of the TCP/IP bibles out there, they are still extremely relevant yet older:
Routing TCP/IP Volume 1 (2005)
Routing TCP/IP Volume 2 (2001)
TCP/IP illustrated Vol 1 (2011)
TCP/IP illustrated Vol 2 (1993)
TCP/IP illustrated Vol 3 (1996)

Features are added and syntax can change throughout the years but the basics pretty much stay the same.

networker050184

xnx wrote: »

What I was getting at is that you can make a physicist / mathematician a network engineer but not always vice versa, disciplines like that require you to have been born naturally gifted.

Yeah, that is a broad statement that is not based on fact whatsoever. I know someone with some pretty high degrees in math and they work in networking, but they will never be to the level of engineer. I'd venture to say the guy is pretty useless compared to most people I've met in IT. He got the degrees somehow though!

xnx

Yeah I suppose it could work the other way too, since some of these 'smart' people have very little people skills have bad teamwork and communication skills. No point being a Network admin / engineer if you can't explain what you need to do / have done to management if required.

Regardless, most of the time with hard work you can do pretty much what ever you want as long as you put the time in. Now I need to prove this statement, see you guys in a few months when I have my MCSA/Degree/CCNP Route exam done and a full time network admin job... .

itdaddy

xnx,
I don't agree. I have met guys that are great at physics but suck at computer programming. but it don't matter both you have to study hard. I can do all of it but only have time for one. hahha goodluck I youstudies xnx

atorven

xnx wrote: »

Yeah I suppose it could work the other way too, since some of these 'smart' people have very little people skills have bad teamwork and communication skills. No point being a Network admin / engineer if you can't explain what you need to do / have done to management if required.

I don't agree with this; I am not here to teach/explain to management the intricacies of routing/switching/whatever topic I’m working on – I have found that management won’t understand/don’t care and just want result. My experience is limited and may be somewhat skewed.

networker050184

Depends on the management. My management chain from direct supervisor all the way up to SVP are all former engineers that still hop into routers. You better have your A game on when explaining something.

MickQ

atorven wrote: »

I don't agree with this; I am not here to teach/explain to management the intricacies of routing/switching/whatever topic I’m working on – I have found that management won’t understand/don’t care and just want result. My experience is limited and may be somewhat skewed.

It may be that they won't ask the details of it, but it shows that you know your stuff if you can take a complex subject and explain it in simple English to the, as yet, uneducated.

I've worked with astronauts, PhDs (and so on) in maths, sciences, languages, etc. Networks and IT is more complex than most of the sciences. The IT fields are evolving at a faster rate than any of the sciences. There is a stronger push in IT to keep up with a variety of specialisations rather than a narrow focus as you'd find in other sciences which makes our lives so much harder.
Don't forget that how easy you find a subject will depend on your personal drive within it and natural abilities.

gorebrush

In my position you can be the best engineer in the world, but it will not win you many favours when you are on a conference call with lots of client people who don't have the first clue about networking.

Iristheangel

atorven wrote: »

I don't agree with this; I am not here to teach/explain to management the intricacies of routing/switching/whatever topic I’m working on – I have found that management won’t understand/don’t care and just want result. My experience is limited and may be somewhat skewed.

If I couldn't get top-down support by explaining why I need to do X project, the benefits of it, and break down why they should pay for it in non-technical speak while still explaining what I'd be doing, then I wouldn't be able to get anything done. Sometimes you need to break down these fun complex tech things we do into laymen's terms and lay it out in a way that explains the benefits so management signs off or else you're just another cost for them.

itdaddy

gorebrush hahahah omg that so funny if I had1 dollar for every time that happened I would be rich!