Cisco in small business (scenario questions)

Ok, so here's the scenario. I work in the mortgage business. My 2 best firends are opening up their own company in about 2 weeks. In the mortgage business we use loan origination software called Calyx Point. That is the program each loan officer uses to keep track of clients, loans, etc. It's basically the whole ball and chain. Now the typical way it is done is you have Calyx on the server and each LO's PC terminals into the server to access the program. This keeps everything centralised obviously.

SO my friends are opening this new office, just one, and they have outside LO's. These are the guys who dont work in the office. They are out on their own getting deals from realtors and things like this. The way they are setting it up is they are giving these guys acess to the server via remote terminal connections from wherever they are. One guy is sitting at Starbucks or at his house...he just gets online and terminals into the server to access calyx and work on his files.

So I was sitting here just thinking to myself if there way a way I could make things cheaper for my friends by implementing cisco into their network and not using terminal access. Maybe ISDN for remote locations, frame realy, whatever. I asked them what their monthly fee for running all these terminal users would be and they told me that there was none. They just had a 1-time licensing fee per user.

I asked them why don't all small businesses do this instead of getting routers, switches, etc. My one friend told me that even Wyatt Earp, his old company, used Citrix for everything. Why dont all companies just use terminal server to get to what they need to?

Is there a way I could save my friends money with their current situation? Also obviously I'm missing some "grand scheme of things" concepts here. Any help would be appreciated.

Find more posts tagged with

Free for TechExams community: Cybersecurity salary guide

Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move

Button

Comments

Silver Bullet

While the Server Hardware and Server OS (Server 2003) may have a high initial upfront cost, the Terminal Server Client Access licenses are rather cheap. Usually around $30.00/CAL.

IMHO, it would be hard to justify spending more money to implement other technologies when what they have is currently working and rather inexpensive on a per user/device cost.

markzab

Yeah, he got his CALs pretty cheap. I guess I know there is really no point in my friends situation, but what I'm getting at is why don't all small businesses just do this? What's the need for Cisco and their technologies for small business? Even if my friends opened up 10 branch offices, why not just get more CALs and set it up the same?

sprkymrk

markzab wrote:

Yeah, he got his CALs pretty cheap. I guess I know there is really no point in my friends situation, but what I'm getting at is why don't all small businesses just do this? What's the need for Cisco and their technologies for small business? Even if my friends opened up 10 branch offices, why not just get more CALs and set it up the same?

Find out what equipment (router/switching/voice, etc) your buddies have set up in the home office. You need network equipment in order to access the server. What other solution were you thinking of implementing?

Remember back in the 90's and earlier companies used dial-up and leased lines (point-to-point) for remote connectivity which cost a fortune. Then with the advent of the Internet becoming more common and relatively cheap the big switch to VPN's over public Internet became a much cheaper solution. That's essentially what your friends are doing - using the public Internet vs. leased lines. The fact that they are using Citrix is really beside the point, as they could use RDP or SSH or whatever, depending on the application.

markzab

sprkymrk wrote:

markzab wrote:

Yeah, he got his CALs pretty cheap. I guess I know there is really no point in my friends situation, but what I'm getting at is why don't all small businesses just do this? What's the need for Cisco and their technologies for small business? Even if my friends opened up 10 branch offices, why not just get more CALs and set it up the same?

Find out what equipment (router/switching/voice, etc) your buddies have set up in the home office. You need network equipment in order to access the server. What other solution were you thinking of implementing?

Remember back in the 90's and earlier companies used dial-up and leased lines (point-to-point) for remote connectivity which cost a fortune. Then with the advent of the Internet becoming more common and relatively cheap the big switch to VPN's over public Internet became a much cheaper solution. That's essentially what your friends are doing - using the public Internet vs. leased lines. The fact that they are using Citrix is really beside the point, as they could use RDP or SSH or whatever, depending on the application.

They aren't using Citrix. They are simple logging into the terminal server from wherever they are. They don't really have equipment in their new office. They have a T1 coming into the phone box of the phone system and then that connects to the server.

sprkymrk

markzab wrote:

They aren't using Citrix. They are simple logging into the terminal server from wherever they are. They don't really have equipment in their new office. They have a T1 coming into the phone box of the phone system and then that connects to the server.

Oh yeah, I got mixed up with what Wyatt Earp was using and what your pals are using. Even still, they are paying for the T-1 line. Are you certain it goes direct from the phone box to the server? No router, switch, anything? Does the server have a modem bank they are dialing into?

markzab

sprkymrk wrote:

markzab wrote:

They aren't using Citrix. They are simple logging into the terminal server from wherever they are. They don't really have equipment in their new office. They have a T1 coming into the phone box of the phone system and then that connects to the server.

Oh yeah, I got mixed up with what Wyatt Earp was using and what your pals are using. Even still, they are paying for the T-1 line. Are you certain it goes direct from the phone box to the server? No router, switch, anything? Does the server have a modem bank they are dialing into?

I'm really just asking a general set of questions here. I just used my friends as an example. Why would a company with 10 locations need to set up a network with cisco routers and switches if they all just went through the internet to the terminal server?

sprkymrk

markzab wrote:

I'm really just asking a general set of questions here. I just used my friends as an example. Why would a company with 10 locations need to set up a network with cisco routers and switches if they all just went through the internet to the terminal server?

I know what you're saying, I'm just trying to picture how a company (any company) can access a server across the internet unless something is in front of the server. Phone companies do use routing and switching too.... I am betting that something is there.

markzab

sprkymrk wrote:

markzab wrote:

I'm really just asking a general set of questions here. I just used my friends as an example. Why would a company with 10 locations need to set up a network with cisco routers and switches if they all just went through the internet to the terminal server?

I know what you're saying, I'm just trying to picture how a company (any company) can access a server across the internet unless something is in front of the server. Phone companies do use routing and switching too.... I am betting that something is there.

Ok, he's got a phone system and he said something like he uses 8 channels of the T1 for the phone system, and then there is a card in the system that the server connects to.

sprkymrk

That leaves about 1MB for data, right?

I'm not familiar enough with communications equipment to know how they do that - maybe a WAN/COMM member can chime in. Anyway, sorry I couldn't answer your original question.

Cheers!

EdTheLad

markzab wrote:

sprkymrk wrote:

markzab wrote:

I'm really just asking a general set of questions here. I just used my friends as an example. Why would a company with 10 locations need to set up a network with cisco routers and switches if they all just went through the internet to the terminal server?

I know what you're saying, I'm just trying to picture how a company (any company) can access a server across the internet unless something is in front of the server. Phone companies do use routing and switching too.... I am betting that something is there.

Ok, he's got a phone system and he said something like he uses 8 channels of the T1 for the phone system, and then there is a card in the system that the server connects to.

The phone system i take it is a pbx.It has a built in mux that separates the 64k timeslots and x-connects 8 for the phones and the remainder are unused.This is old school TDM. Ask your friend how much the T1 costs.Internally in the Telco the T1 is muxed into a DS3 or STM1 and connected to a switch.So your friend is reserving a complete T1 even though he is only using 512k within it.
The problem with this setup is most small companies cant afford to rent a leased line T1, they prefer to pay for what they use.With FR or ATM on top of the T1 the telco has more control of the data be transmitted, instead of mapping the complete T1 across a TDM core, the telco can multiplex multiple customers onto a single T1, this saves you paying for the complete T1 and now you pay for 512k only or even less if the 8 channels are not fully utilized. Basically you are comparing leased line with vpn.
Leased line is fixed and expensive where as vpn access is cheaper and more flexible.
Now looking at your friends setup he could do the same thing with 1 x cisco 2600 using a channelized T1 module to connect the telco and an ethernet interface connected to the server.
Instead of the channelized T1 he could connect the serial interface to a csu/dsu which connects to the telco, organise a FR connection and pay for rental on 512K or less instead of 1544k.
As you can see the cost resolves around the T1 rental.

If you find out exactly what services your friend requires maybe it could be cost effective for him to switch to dsl, cable etc.

rossonieri#1

markzab wrote:

I'm really just asking a general set of questions here. I just used my friends as an example. Why would a company with 10 locations need to set up a network with cisco routers and switches if they all just went through the internet to the terminal server?

hello markzab,

is this what you really asking?
the answer maybe :
1. these 10 locations need switches if they also have LAN for internal office work.
2. different function of R/S with TS :
R/S means to connect different LANs (for simple) -- TS for a specific application function.
3. and so on...

cheers...

markzab

EdTheLad wrote:

markzab wrote:

sprkymrk wrote:

markzab wrote:

I'm really just asking a general set of questions here. I just used my friends as an example. Why would a company with 10 locations need to set up a network with cisco routers and switches if they all just went through the internet to the terminal server?

I know what you're saying, I'm just trying to picture how a company (any company) can access a server across the internet unless something is in front of the server. Phone companies do use routing and switching too.... I am betting that something is there.

Ok, he's got a phone system and he said something like he uses 8 channels of the T1 for the phone system, and then there is a card in the system that the server connects to.

The phone system i take it is a pbx.It has a built in mux that separates the 64k timeslots and x-connects 8 for the phones and the remainder are unused.This is old school TDM. Ask your friend how much the T1 costs.Internally in the Telco the T1 is muxed into a DS3 or STM1 and connected to a switch.So your friend is reserving a complete T1 even though he is only using 512k within it.
The problem with this setup is most small companies cant afford to rent a leased line T1, they prefer to pay for what they use.With FR or ATM on top of the T1 the telco has more control of the data be transmitted, instead of mapping the complete T1 across a TDM core, the telco can multiplex multiple customers onto a single T1, this saves you paying for the complete T1 and now you pay for 512k only or even less if the 8 channels are not fully utilized. Basically you are comparing leased line with vpn.
Leased line is fixed and expensive where as vpn access is cheaper and more flexible.
Now looking at your friends setup he could do the same thing with 1 x cisco 2600 using a channelized T1 module to connect the telco and an ethernet interface connected to the server.
Instead of the channelized T1 he could connect the serial interface to a csu/dsu which connects to the telco, organise a FR connection and pay for rental on 512K or less instead of 1544k.
As you can see the cost resolves around the T1 rental.

If you find out exactly what services your friend requires maybe it could be cost effective for him to switch to dsl, cable etc.

That's what I wanted to hear.

I actually just asked him today. He told me for the T1 he'll be paying $450/month. So per year that's $5,400. I'm really not in the know when it comes to T1's...yet. He told me he's using like 8 channels for the phone system. It's your basic phone system. I think he got like 8-12 lines with 16 extensions? So let me see if I understand this. He's going to use like half of his T1 for the phone system? Does he have to? And why would he only get 512 for data? If he has the full T1 why wouldnt he just be allowed to use whatever is left after the 8 channels on the phone line are used up?

Also, just to play my own devils advocate, lets say he went with the non-leased option (funny, I was just reading about this in my frame relay chapter last night). Why couldn't he just ask the telco to do this and just not buy a cisco router? Or would he have to get a cisco router in order to run frame relay?

I appreciate the help Ed.

rossonieri#1

markzab wrote:

... Or would he have to get a cisco router in order to run frame relay?

no -- not all. Buy a PCI FRAD.

cheers..

EdTheLad

markzab wrote:

That's what I wanted to hear.

I actually just asked him today. He told me for the T1 he'll be paying $450/month. So per year that's $5,400. I'm really not in the know when it comes to T1's...yet. He told me he's using like 8 channels for the phone system. It's your basic phone system. I think he got like 8-12 lines with 16 extensions? So let me see if I understand this. He's going to use like half of his T1 for the phone system? Does he have to? And why would he only get 512 for data? If he has the full T1 why wouldnt he just be allowed to use whatever is left after the 8 channels on the phone line are used up?

Also, just to play my own devils advocate, lets say he went with the non-leased option (funny, I was just reading about this in my frame relay chapter last night). Why couldn't he just ask the telco to do this and just not buy a cisco router? Or would he have to get a cisco router in order to run frame relay?

I appreciate the help Ed.

Each phone call he makes out of his company he will use 1 channel i.e. 64k this is standard non compressed voice.So simultaneously he can make 8 outside calls.Since you didn't provide any info regarding the data, lets assume he uses 4 slots for the data, thats 256k bidirectional which should be enough for his terminal access.Altogether voice and data are 768k, remember this is all an assumption maybe he uses the complete T1, but thats what you have to find out.
He can use as many channels as he likes for voice and data but remember he only has 23 to play with(i'm not sure on T1 as i use E1 so dont break my balls about framing or signalling).
Since he owns the complete T1 he can use it all or not, but as the current setup is tdm the telco must use all,i just gave info on the phone as you didn't provide extra.
He needs to match the encapsulation method used by the telco, if i were you i'd call a provider and tell them what you have and need, see what they can provide and at what cost.Anyway you probably wouldn't go FR, i was just giving an example.FR is now being phased out and replaced by dsl and cable technologies.One thing to remember is his voice requires a high level of service bidirectionally so you must ensure to plan this correctly.
Maybe he could buy an additional card for the pbx system that supports ATM, FR, DSL etc, you will have to investigate all these things and see whats the most cost effective way to do it and still maintain the same quality that he has now.
Also remember the more devices you add the more complexity involved and this can create a problem in the future if something fails.

markzab

In his current situation it probably wouldn't make sense to go with cisco, I understand that. Too small. I was just trying to gain an understanding of when it MIGHT have to come into play. I guess I'm trying to figure out at which point a compnay gets so big that it has to start using what we train for. My friend uses terminal boxes, not PC's for each inside loan officer. I guess they would connect to a generic switch/hub in the closet, which would also be connected to the server, and the phone system. If he did one day get 10 branches (god willing business was that good) they would have the same setup, yet they wouldn't have a server at each location. Each user would terminal into the main branch. From the server when they were logged in they would have access to the program they use, internet, e-mail, etc.

I guess I just don't have the knowledge yet of how this all comes together with cisco equipment. See I would feel comfortable walking into a company that ALREADY has cisco implemented and I'd be able to provide my knowledge to help with what they needed me to do. However, I don't think I'd know when to tell a company like my friends when it was time to drop the terminal access and create a cisco network.

Why would he ever get off of what he is doing now when even by 100 offices, he could still be giving everyone terminal access via the net? Sorry this thread keeps going on. I'm just really interested in this. I want to learn how to sell the customer the cisco idea.

EdTheLad

Everything comes down to cost, reliability,scalability,manageability etc. hrmm maybe i should go for the ccda

This isn't about Cisco equipment its related to networking as a whole.Imagine your friends company expands a little but now they need just a little more than the T1, in your approach he will now need to spend 900$ a month for the T1 rental, maybe he will need to buy another card for his pbx etc etc. Maybe a new company providing multipoint wireless opens across the road and offers the same type of service for $300 a month, but you will have to invest in some extra equipment link an antenna that costs $1000 etc etc.This is a business plan that includes many factors, you must weight up the pros and cons about any network upgrade.
Hey you did the ccda in the past, you should know this stuff!

markzab

7 years ago. The doors are opening back up...but I haven't replaced all the lights in the room yet.

Thanks for the help Ed. I guess once I've gotten myself up to the level I was once at I'll have more answers. Nice to have a hunger for knowledge.

Darthn3ss

so this stuff is covered in CCDA? I've always wanted to know more about WAN technology.. i know some basics of some of them from my Network+ class... but as far as my cisco knowledge is concerned, you simulate a WAN with a serial cable... :-p