Speechless

spicy ahispicy ahi Posts: 413Member ■■□□□□□□□□
I read this article with a mix of amusement and disgust. I've joked around with friends about what wacky networks I would design if money was no object. A 3945 in a building the size of a trailer never crossed my mind though. icon_redface.gif

Why a one-room West Virginia library runs a $20,000 Cisco router | Ars Technica
Spicy :cool: Mentor the future! Be a CyberPatriot!

Comments

  • sratakhinsratakhin Posts: 818Member
    I once installed a Cisco 2921 Router and 2960 Switch in a room for three employees. It was a government agency, so I wasn't surprised.
  • Mrock4Mrock4 Posts: 2,360Banned
    I'm going to have to back Cisco on this- we work with them a lot and while it's not uncommon for them to over-engineer, I just can't see them placing 3900's in an office with three users unless they were given requirements that supported that platform.

    If I was guessing, I'd venture to bet someone from the state who didn't have a clue gave Cisco vague requirements- Cisco provided the quote, and the state bought it without realizing what they were getting. While it is true Cisco could have recommended a smaller, more appropriate platform- they could only do so if the customer provided adequate requirements. With the amount of work I've done with the government..I pretty much expect vague requirements these days, and celebrate when I get solid requirements up front (without digging).

    Oh- and the guy from the state who defended this install by saying the 3900's would allow for "future growth" is trying to cover his/someone elses azz. These 3900's will be more than enough for the next 20 years..but they won't keep them that long because they'll be EoL long before then, and the state will want to keep all their devices under SmartNet, and end up replacing them.

    I guess I just have a hard problem finding blame in the vendor- if you come to me asking for XX amount of routers with XX features, I'm going to sell them to you. I understand the vendor should work as a trusted advisor- but at the end of the day, they sell products- and it's the buyers responsibility to do their homework.

    If the state of WV employs ONE network engineer with a couple of years of experience, he could easily tell the 3900's are overkill. Apparently they didn't check with ANY engineers prior to ordering..lol.
  • blargoeblargoe Posts: 4,165Member ■■■■■■■■■□
    Mrock4 wrote: »
    I'm going to have to back Cisco on this- we work with them a lot and while it's not uncommon for them to over-engineer, I just can't see them placing 3900's in an office with three users unless they were given requirements that supported that platform.

    If I was guessing, I'd venture to bet someone from the state who didn't have a clue gave Cisco vague requirements- Cisco provided the quote, and the state bought it without realizing what they were getting. While it is true Cisco could have recommended a smaller, more appropriate platform- they could only do so if the customer provided adequate requirements. With the amount of work I've done with the government..I pretty much expect vague requirements these days, and celebrate when I get solid requirements up front (without digging).

    Oh- and the guy from the state who defended this install by saying the 3900's would allow for "future growth" is trying to cover his/someone elses azz. These 3900's will be more than enough for the next 20 years..but they won't keep them that long because they'll be EoL long before then, and the state will want to keep all their devices under SmartNet, and end up replacing them.

    I guess I just have a hard problem finding blame in the vendor- if you come to me asking for XX amount of routers with XX features, I'm going to sell them to you. I understand the vendor should work as a trusted advisor- but at the end of the day, they sell products- and it's the buyers responsibility to do their homework.

    If the state of WV employs ONE network engineer with a couple of years of experience, he could easily tell the 3900's are overkill. Apparently they didn't check with ANY engineers prior to ordering..lol.

    Or, the government IS director didn't want his budget cut next year, so he's going to spend all the money he was allotted for this year whether its wasteful or not. That's the understanding I've gotten about government from family I have that works for local government.
    IT guy since 12/00

    Recent: 1/29/2018 - Passed 70-743 - MCSA 2016 Complete; 1/13/2018 - Passed 70-411 - MCSA 2012 complete
    Working on: Being a better coder, build/test/deploy automation fundamentals
    Future: Renew VCP (due 2/2019), possibly with an adjacent VCP or VCAP
  • Mrock4Mrock4 Posts: 2,360Banned
    You're completely right- BUT, I highly doubt they were so far under budget they had millions..granted I've only done DoD (which as far as I know, has a lot more money), and at the end of the year it's usually a few hundred thousand..maybe a million or two, but not enough to fund this whole project.

    Just my $.02..it's all speculation..but it sure is fun :)
  • lsud00dlsud00d Posts: 1,571Member
    blargoe wrote: »
    Or, the government IS director didn't want his budget cut next year, so he's going to spend all the money he was allotted for this year whether its wasteful or not. That's the understanding I've gotten about government from family I have that works for local government.

    I'm sure this has some to do with it. If you don't spend it, you lose it...looking back on a few years ago (before the budget crisis) I can remember end of fiscal year wishlists that went around the office in an attempt to spend the rest of the money available in the budget :)
Sign In or Register to comment.