Poaching CCIEs

Posted on by
11

CCIEIce

During the CCIE Netvet Reception at Cisco Live 2013, a curious question came up during our Q&A session with CEO John Chambers. Paul Borghese asked if it was time for the partner restriction on CCIE tenure to be lifted in order to increase the value of a CCIE in the larger market. For those not familiar, when a CCIE is hired by a Cisco partner, they need to attach their number to the company in order for the company to receive the benefits of having hired a CCIE. Right now, that means counting toward the CCIE threshold for Silver and Gold status. When a CCIE leaves the the first company and moves to another partner their number stays associated with the original company for one year and cannot be counted with the new company until the expiration of that year.

There are a multitude of reasons why that might be the case. It encourages companies to pay for CCIE training and certification if the company knows that the newly-minted CCIE will be sticking around for at least a year past their departure. It also provides a lifeline to a Cisco partner in the event a CCIE decides to move on. By keeping the number attached to the company for a specific time period, the original company has the time necessary to hire or train new resources to take over for the departed CCIE’s job role. If the original partner is up for any contracts or RFPs that require a CCIE on staff, that grace period could be the difference between picking up or losing that contract.

As indicated above, Paul asked if maybe that policy needed to change. In his mind, the restriction of the CCIE number was causing CCIEs to stay at their current companies because their inability to move their number to the new company in a timely manner made them less valuable. I know now that the question came on behalf of Eman Conde, the CCIE Agent, who is very active in making sure the rights and privileges of CCIEs everywhere are well represented. I remember meeting Eman for the first time back at Cisco Live 2008 at an IPExpert party, long before I was a CCIE. In that time, Eman has worked very hard to make sure that CCIEs are well represented in the job market.  It is also in Eman’s best interests to ensure that CCIEs can move freely between companies without restriction.

My biggest fear is that removing the one-year association restriction for Cisco Partners will cause partners to stop funding CCIE development.  I was very fortunate to have my employer pay the entire cost of my CCIE from beginning to end.  In return, I agreed in principle to stay with them for a period of time and not seek employment from anyone else.  There was no agreement in place.  There was no contract.  Just a handshake.  Even after I left to go work with Gestalt IT, my number is locked to them for the next year.  This doesn’t really bother me.  It does make them feel better about moving to a competitor.  What would happen if I could move my number freely to the next business without penalty?

Could you imagine a world where CCIEs were being paid top dollar to work at a company not for their knowledge but because it was cheaper to buy CCIEs that it was to build them?  Think of a sports team that doesn’t have a good minor league system but instead buys their talent for absurd amounts of money.  If you had pictures of the New York Yankees in your head, you probably aren’t far removed from my line of thinking.  When the only value of a CCIE is associating the number to your company then you’ve missed the whole point of the program.

CCIEs are more valuable than their number.  With the exception of the Gold/Silver partner status their number is virtually useless.  What is more important is the partner specializations they can bring it.  My CCIE was pointless to my old employer since I was the only one.  What was a greater boon was all the partner certifications that I brought for unified communications, UCS implementation, and even project management.  Those certifications aren’t bound to a company.  In fact, I would probably be more marketable by going to a small partner with one CCIE or going to a silver partner with 3 CCIEs and telling them that I can bring in new lines of partner business while they are waiting for my number to clear escrow.  The smart partners will realize the advantage and hire me on and wait.  Only an impatient partner that wants to build a gold-level practice today would want to avoid number lock-in.

I don’t think we need to worry about removing the CCIE association restriction right now.  It serves to entice partners to fund CCIEs without worrying about them moving on as soon as they get certified.  Termination results in the number being freed up upon mutual agreement.  Most CCIEs that I’ve heard of that left their jobs soon after certification did it because their company told them they can’t afford to pay a CCIE.  Forcing small employers to let CCIEs walk away to bigger competitors with no penalty will prevent them from funding any more CCIE training.  They’ll say, “If the big partners want CCIEs so badly that they’ll pay bounties then let the big partners do all the training too.”  I don’t even think an employer non-compete would fix the issue as those aren’t enforceable in many states.  I think the program exists the way it does for a reason.  With all due deference to Eman and Paul, I don’t think we’ve reached the point where CCIE free agency is ready for prime time.

Under the Influencers

Posted on by
1

DominoFinger

I’ve never really been one for titles or labels.  Pejorative terms like geek or nerd never bothered me growing up.  I never really quibbled over being called a technician or an engineer (or rock star).  And when the time came to define what it was that I did in my spare time in front of a monitor and keyboard I just settled on blogger because that was the most specific term that described what I did.  All that changed this year.

When I went to VMware Partner Exchange, I spent a lot of time hanging out with Amy Lewis (@CommsNinja) from Cisco.  Part of this was due to my filming of an IPv6-focused episode of Engineers Unplugged.  Afterwards, I spent a lot of time as a fly on the wall listening to conversations among the assembled folks.  I saw how they interacted with each other.  I took copious notes and tried to stay out of the way as much as possible.  Not that Amy made that easy at all.  She went out of her way to pull me out of the shadows and introduce me to people that mattered and made decisions on a much grander scale than I was used to.  What struck me is not that she did that.  What made me think was how she introduced me.  Not as a nerd or an engineer or even as a blogger.  She used a very specific word.

Influencer

It took some time before the enormity of what Amy was doing sank in.  Influencers are more than just a blog or a Facebook page or a Twitter handle.  They take all of those things and wrap them into a package that is greater than the sum of its parts.  They say things that other people listen to and consider.  The more I thought about it, the more it made sense.

I think of influencers as people like Stephen Foskett (@SFoskett), Greg Ferro (@etherealmind), or Ivan Pepelnjak (@IOSHints).  When those guys speak, people listen.  When the publish a podcast or write a product review that turns heads.  Every field has influencers.  Wizened people that have been there and done just about everything.  Those people then spend their time educating the greater whole to avoid making the same mistakes all over again or to help those with ability to find the vision needed to do great things.  They don’t hold that knowledge to themselves and use it as capital to fight political battles or profit from those that don’t know any better.  Being a blogger or technical person on the various social media outlets invovles a bit of give and take.  It requires a selfless type of attitude.  Too many analyst firms live by the maxim “Don’t give away the farm” when it comes to social media interaction.  Those firms don’t want their people giving away advice that could be locked into a report and assigned a price.  In my mind, true influencers are the exact opposite.

It struck me funny when Amy referred to me in the same way that thought of others in the industry.  What had I done to earn that moniker?  Who in their right mind would listen to me?  I’m some kid with a keyboard and a WordPress account.  However, the truth of things was a little beyond what I was initially thinking.  It didn’t really hit me until my trip to Cisco Live.

Everyone is an influencer.

Influencers aren’t just luminaries in the industry.  They aren’t the wise old owls that dispense advice like a fortune cookie.  Instead, influencers are people that offer knowledge without reservation for the sole purpose of making the world better off than it was.  You don’t have to have a blog or a Twitter handle to be an influencer.  Those things just make it easy to identify the chatty types.  To really be an influencer, you only need have the desire to speak up when someone asks a question that you have insight into.  If two people are having a conversation about the “best” way to configure something, an influencer will share their opinion freely without reservation.  It might not be much.  A simple caution about a technology or an opinion about where the industry is headed.  But the influence comes because those people take what you’ve said and incorporate it into their thinking.

I’ve been trying to champion people when it comes to writing and speaking out on social media.  I want more bloggers and Tweeters and Facebookers.  I’ve taken to collectively calling them influencers because of what that term really represents.  I want more influencers in the world.  I want intelligent people giving freely of themselves to advance the industry.  I want to recognize them and tell others to listen what these people are saying.  Sure, having a blog or a Twitter handle makes it easier to point them out.  But I’m not above telling someone “Go talk to Bob.  He knows a lot about what’s troubling you”.

Tom’s Take

It doesn’t take a lot to be an influencer.  Helping someone decide between detergent at the grocery store makes you an influencer.  What’s important is taking the next step to make it bigger and better.  Make your opinions and analysis heard.  Be public.  Sure, you’re going to be wrong sometimes.  But when you’re right people will start to listen.  Not just people wanting to know the difference between Tide and Gain.  People that have C-level titles.  Product managers.  People that want to know what the industry is thinking.  When you see that something you’ve said or done has a a real impact on a tangible thing, like a website or a product look, you can rest easy at night knowing that you have influence.

A Guide to SDN Spirit Animals

Posted on by
Reply

The world of computers and IT has always been linked with animals.  Whether you are referring to Tux the Penguin from the world of Linux or the various zoological specimens that have graced the covers of the O’Reilly Media library you can find almost every member of the animal kingdom represented.  Many of these icons have become mascots for their users.  In the world of software defined networking (SDN), we have our own mascot as well.  However, I’m going to propose that we start considering a few more as well.

The Horned Wonder

If you’ve read any kind of blog post about SDN in the last year, you’ve probably seen reference to a unicorn at some point.  Unicorns are mythical creatures that are full of magic and wonder.  I referenced them once in a post concerning a network where I had trouble understanding how untagged packets were traversing VLANs without causing a meltdown.  When the network admin asked me how it was happening I replied, “They must be getting ferried around on the backs of unicorns!”  That started my association of magical things happening in networks and their subsequent attribution to unicorns.  Greg Ferro (@etherealmind) is fond of saying that new protocols without sufficient documentation must be powered by “unicorn tears”.  Ivan Pepelnjak (@ioshints) is also a huge fan of the unicorn, as evidenced by this picture:

Ivan rides his steed into battle

Ivan rides his steed into battle

The unicorn is popular because it represents a fantastic explanation for a difficult problem.  However, people that I’ve talked to recently are getting tired of attributing mythical properties of various SDN-related technologies to the mighty unicorn.  I thought about it and realized that there are more suitable animals depending on what technology you’re talking about.

King of Beasts

griffin

If you ask most SDN companies, they’ll tell you that their spirit animal is the griffin.  The griffin is a mythical creature with the body and hindquarters of a lion combined with the head, wings, and front legs of an eagle.  This regal beast is regarded as a stately amalgam of the king of beasts and the king of birds.  It typically guards important and sacred treasures.  It is also a popular animal in heraldry, where it represents courage and boldness.

You can tell from that description that anyone writing an API for their existing OS or networking stack probably has one of these things hanging in their cubicle.  It stands for the best possible joining of two great ideas.  Those APIs guard the sacred treasures for those that have always wanted insight into the inner workings of a network operating system.  The griffin is the best case scenario for those that want to write an effective API or access methodology for enabling SDN.  But as we all know, something the best strategies are sometimes poorly implemented.

Design by Committee

Chimera

The opposite of the griffin would have to be the chimera.  A chimera is a mythical beast that has the body, head, and front legs of lion.  It has a goat’s head jutting from the middle of the body and a snake’s head for a tail, although some sources say this is a dragon head with the associated dragon wings as well.  This nightmarish beast comes from Greek mythology where it was an omen of disaster when spotted.

The chimera represents what happens when you try to combine things and end up with the worst possible combination.  Why is there a goat’s head in the middle?  What good does a snake head for a tail really do?  In much the same way, companies that are trying to create SDN strategies by throwing everything they can into the mix will have end results that should use a chimera for a mascot.  Rather than taking the approach of building the product with the best and most useful features, some designers feel the need to attach every thing they can in an effort to replicate existing non-useful functionality.  “Better to have it and not need it” is the rallying cry most often heard.  This leads to the kind of unwieldy and bloated applications that scare people away from SDN and back to traditional networking methodology.

Tom’s Take

Every project needs a mascot.  Every product needs an icon or a fancy drawing on the product page.  Sooner or later, those mascots come to symbolize everything the project stands for.  Content penguins aside, most projects are looking for something cute or cuddly.  Security vendors are notorious for using scary looking animals to get the point across that they aren’t to be messed with.  I think that using mythologic creatures other than the unicorn to symbolize SDN projects is the way to go.  It focuses the developers to ground themselves in real features.  Hopefully it helps them avoid the mentality that could create nightmarish creatures like the chimera.

Why I Won’t Be Getting Google Glass

Posted on by
1

google_glass_grey-580-90

You may recall a few months back when I wrote an article talking about Google Glass and how I thought that the first generation of this wearable computing device was aimed way too low in terms of target applications. When Google started a grass roots campaign to hand out Glass units to social media influencers, I retweeted my blog post with the hashtag #IfIHadGlass with the idea that someone at Google might see it and realize they needed to se their sights higher. Funny enough, someone at Google did see the tweet and told me that I was in the running to be offered a development unit of Glass. All for driving a bit of traffic to my blog.

About a month ago, I got the magic DM from Google Glass saying that I could go online and request my unit along with a snazzy carrying case and a sunglass lens if I wanted. I only had to pony up $1500US for the privilege. Oh, and I could only pick it up at a secured Google facility. I don’t even know where the closest one of those to Oklahoma might be. After weighing the whole thing carefully, I made my decision.

I won’t be participating in generation one of Google Glass.

I had plenty of reasons. I’m not averse to participating in development trials. I use beta software all the time. I signed up for the last wave of Google CR-48 Chromebooks. In fact, I still use that woefully underpowered CR-48 to this day. But Google Glass represents something entirely different from those beta opportunities.

From Entry to Profit

Google isn’t creating a barrier to entry through their usual methods of restricting supply or making the program invite only. Instead, they are trying to restrict Glass users to those with a spare $1500 to drop on a late alpha/early beta piece of hardware. I also think they are trying to recoup the development costs of the project via the early adopters. Google has gone from being an awesome development shop to a company acutely aware of the bottom line. Google has laid down some very stringent rules to determine what can be shown on Glass. Advertising is verboten. Anyone want to be that Google finds a way to work AdWords in somewhere? If you are relying on your tried-and-true user base of developers to recover your costs before you even release the product to the masses, you’ve missed big time

Eye of the Beholder

One of the other things that turned me off about the first generation of Glass is the technology not quite being where I thought it would be. After examining what Glass is capable of doing from a projection standpoint, many of my initial conceptions about the unit are way off. I suppose that has a lot to do with what I thought Google was really working on. Instead of finding a way to track eye movement inside of a specific area and deliver results based on where the user’s eye is focused, Google instead chose to simply project a virtual screen on the user’s eye slightly off center from the field of vision. That’s a great win for version one. But it doesn’t really accomplish what I thought Google Glass should do. The idea of a wearable eyeglass computer isn’t that useful to me if the field of vision is limited to a camera glued to the side of a pair of eyeglass frames. Without the ability to track the eye movements of a user it’s simply not possible to filter the huge amount of information being taken in by the user. If Google could implement a function to see what the user is focusing on, I’m sure that some companies would pay *huge* development dollars to be able to track that information or run some kind of augmented reality advertisement directed as an alternative to that brand. Just go and watch Minority Report if you want to know what I’m thinking about.

Mind the Leash

According to my friend Blake Krone (@BlakeKrone), who just posted his first Google Glass update, the unit is great for taking pictures and video without the need to dig out a camera or take your eyes off the subject for more than the half second it takes to activate the Glass camera with a voice command.  Once you’ve gotten those shiny new pictures ready to upload to Google+, how are you going to do it?  There’s the rub in the first generation Glass units.  You have to tether Glass to some kind of mobile hotspot in order to be able to upload photos outside of a WiFi hotspot.  I guess trying to cram a cellular radio into the little plastic frame was more than the engineers could muster in the initial prototype.  Many will stop me here and interject that WiFi hotspot access is fairly common now.  All you have to do is grab a cup of coffee from Starbucks or a milkshake from McDonalds and let your photos upload to GoogleSpace.  How does that work from a mountain top?  What if I had a video that I wanted to post right away from the middle of the ocean?  How exactly do you livestream video while skydiving over the Moscone Center during Google I/O?  Here’s a hint:  You plant engineers on the roof with parabolic dishes to broadcast WiFi straight up in the air.  Not as magical when you strip all the layers away.  For me, the need to upgrade my data plan to include tethering just so I could upload those pics and videos outside my house was another non-starter.  Maybe the second generation of Glass will have figured out how to make a cellular radio small enough to fit inside a pair of glasses.

Tom’s Take

Google Glass has made some people deliriously happy. They have a computer strapped to their face and they are hacking away to create applications that are going to change the way we interact with software and systems in general. Those people are a lot smarter than me. I’m not a developer. I’m not a visionary. I just call things like I see them. To me, Google Glass was shoved out the door a generation too early to be of real use. It was created to show that Google is still on the cutting edge of hardware development even though no one was developing wearable computing. On the other hand, Google did paint a huge target on their face. When the genie came out of the bottle other companies like Apple and Pebble started developing their own take on wearable computing. Sure, it’s not a striking as a pair of sci-fi googles. But evolutionary steps here lead to the slimming down of technology to the point where those iPhones and Samsung Galaxy S 4 Whatevers can fit comfortable into the frame of any designer eyeglasses. And that’s when the real money is going to be made. Not by gouging developers or requiring your users to be chained to a smartphone.

If you want to check out what Glass looks like from the perspective of someone that isn’t going to wear them in the shower, check out Blake’s Google Glass blog at http://FromEyeLevel.com

SDN and Toilets

Posted on by
5

401186_AutoFlushN5I’ve been thinking a lot about SDN recently, as you can no doubt tell from the number of blog posts that I’ve been putting out about it.  A lot of my thinking is coming from the idea that we need to find better ways to relate SDN to real world objects and processes to help people understand better what the advantages and disadvantages of all the various parts can be.

One example of the apprehension that some feel with SDN occurred to me the other day when I was in a conference center restroom.  Despite all the joking about doing the best thinking in a bathroom I found a nice example based on retrofitted old technology.  You’ve no doubt seen that many restrooms are starting to install touchless flush sensors on their toilets and urinals.  There are a myriad of health and sanitation benefits as well as water cost savings, not to mention saving maintenance costs on the handles of these units.

The part that made me curious during this trip was the complete lack of any buttons on the unit for triggering a manual flush.  Most of the touchless toilets and urinals that I’ve seen have some sort of small button used to flush the unit at the behest of the user.  While these buttons are probably not used all that often, it is a bit reassuring to know they exist if needed.  Imagine my surprise when I found the units in this particular convention center with no button whatsoever.  A completely closed system.  While I was able to finish my business without further incident, it made me start thinking about these kinds of systems in relation to SDN constructs.

Black Boxes

My go-to example for this type of issue used to be an automotive one – the carburetor and the modern fuel injection system.  Carburetors are great ways to deliver a fuel/air mixture into an engine.  They also offer a multitude of customization options and performance tuning capabilities.  They also represent the type of arcane knowledge that’s need to make one work right in the first place.  If you misalign a jet or don’t put things back together correctly, you can very easily cause your engine to run improperly or even cause your car not to start.  The customization ability exists along with the possibility of causing damage if you aren’t properly trained.

A fuel injection system, on the other hand, is tuned perfectly when it is installed.  Once it’s bolted on to the engine, it becomes a cryptic black box that does its job without any further input.  In fact, if something does go wrong with the fuel injection system there’s likely no way you’re going to be able to work on it unless you are an S.A.E. mechanic or fuel injector designer.  The system does its job without input because of the initial tuning.

How do both of these examples relate to SDN?  There are some that say that a properly functioning SDN system will use analysis and inputs to determine the best way to install flows into a device or build overlays in a way to maximize bandwidth to critical systems.  It’s a steady state machine just like a fuel injection system or a buttonless toilet.  It offers no way for people to provide inputs into the system to influence behavior.  You might say that a system of this nature is far fetched and fantastic.  Yet we seem to be leveraging a multitude of technologies for the purpose of removing as much input and decision making from the network as we can.  Is it that much of a leap to decide that we want to remove external variables totally from the equation?  I think that will be a focus on the next wave of SDN once the baselines have been established.

People don’t like steady state black boxes.  They like having an override switch or a manual activation button.  It reassures them to know that they can have an impact on the system no matter how small.  It’s a lot like the crosswalk buttons on street corners.  Even if they are programmed to have no effect at all on the light schedule pedestrians feel more comfortable having them around.  The average engineer hates having no input into a system.  That’s why full network automation is so scary.  What happens when things go off the rails?

Tom’s Take

If you really want to make sure that people feel comfortable with the idea of a fully automated SDN solution, the key is to give them meaningless input.  Make a button or a field that lets them think they are having an impact without really taking anything into account to create the best path through the network.  Routing protocols show what happens when people think they are smarter than algorithms.  Imagine what would happen if that level of interference would happen in a data center.  The fix might not be as easy as backing out a static route.  In truth, I don’t think the data center world is quite ready for a fully automated SDN solution right now.  Maybe once we’ve gotten them used to the idea of buttonless flush toilets, we can introduce the idea of a buttonless data center.

iOS 7 and Labels

Posted on by
1

wwdc-13-apple-reveals-ios-7

Apple is prepping the release of iOS 7 to their users sometime in the next couple of months. The developers are already testing it out to find bugs and polish their apps in anticipation of the user base adopting Jonathan Ive‘s vision for a mobile operating system. In many ways, it’s still the same core software we’ve been using for many years now with a few radical changes to the look and feel. The icons and lack of skeumorphism are getting the most press. But I found something that I think has the ability to be even bigger than that.

The user interface (UI) elements in the previous iOS builds all look very similar. This is no doubt due to the influence of Scott Forestall, the now departed manager of iOS. The dearth of glossy buttons and switches looked gorgeous back in 2007 when the iPhone was first released. But all UI evolves over time. Some evolve faster than others. Apple hit a roadblock because of those very same buttons. They were all baked into the core UI. Changing them was like trying to correct a misspelled word in a stone carving.  It takes months of planning to make even the smallest of changes.  And those changes have to be looked at on a massive scale to avoid causing issues in the rest of the OS.

iOS 7 is different to me.  Look at this pic of an incoming call and compare it with the same screen in iOS 6:

iOS 7

iOS 7

iOS 6

iOS 6

The iOS 6 picture has buttons.  The iOS 7 picture is different.  Instead of have chiseled buttons, it looks like the Answer and Decline buttons have been stuck to the screen with labels.  That’s not the only place in the UI that has a label-like appearance.  Sending a new  iMessage or text to someone in the Messages app looks like applying a stamp to a piece of paper.  Taking all that into consideration, I think I finally understand what Ive is trying to do with this UI shift in iOS 7

Labels are easy to reapply.  You just peel them off and stick them back on.  Unlike the chiseled-in-stone button UI, a label can quickly and easily be reconfigured or replaced if it starts to look dated.  Apple made mention of this in Ive’s iOS 7 video where he talked about creating “hierarchical layers (to) establish order“.  Ive commented that this approach gives depth to the OS.  I think he’s holding back on us.

Jonathan Ive created UI layers in the OS so he can change them out more quickly.  Think about it.  If you only have to change a label in an app or change the way they are presented on screen, it allows you to make more rapid changes to the way the OS looks.  If the layers are consistent and draw from the same pool of resources, it allows you to skin the OS however you want with minimal effort.  Ive wasn’t just trying to scrub away the accumulation of Scott Forrestal’s ideas about the UI.  He wanted to change them and make the UI so flexible that the look can be updated in the blink of an eye.  That gives him the ability to change elements at will without the need to overhaul the system.  That kind of rapid configurability gives Apple the chance to keep things looking fresh and accommodate changing tastes.

Tom’s Take

I can almost hear people now saying that making future iOS releases able to be skinned is just another rip off of Android’s feature set.  In some ways, you are very right.  However, consider that Android was always designed with modularity in mind from the beginning.  Google wanted to give manufacturers and carriers the ability to install their own UI.  Think about how newsworthy the announcement of a TouchWiz-free Galaxy S4 was.  Apple has always considered the UI inviolate in all their products.  You don’t have much freedom to change things in iOS or in OS X.  Jonathan Ive is trying to set things up so that changes can be made more frequently in iOS.  Modders will likely find ways to insert their own UI elements and take these ideas in an ever more radical direction.  And all because Apple wanted to be able to peel off their UI pieces as easily as a label.

Nobody Cares

Posted on by
7

Writing a blog can be very fun and rewarding.  I’ve learned a lot from the things I’ve written.  I’ve had a blast with some of the more humorous posts that I’ve put up.  I’ve even managed to be anointed at the Hater of NAT.  After everything though, I’ve learned something very important about writing.  For the most part, nobody cares.

Now, before you run to your keyboard and respond that you do indeed care, allow me to expound on that idea just a bit.  I’ve written lots of different kinds of posts.  I’ve talked about educational stuff, funny lists, and even activist posts trying to get unpopular policies changed.  What I’ve found is that I can never count on something being popular.  There are days when I sit down in front of my computer and start furiously typing away as if I’m going to change the world with the words that I’m putting out.  When I hit the publish button, it’s as if I’m launching those paragraphs into a black hole.  I’m faced with a reality that maybe things weren’t as important as I thought.

A prime example is the original intent for my blog.  I wanted to write a book about teaching people structured troubleshooting.  I figured if I could get a few of those chapters down as blog posts, it would go a long way to helping me get everything sorted out in my mind.  Now, almost three years later, the two least read posts on my site are those two troubleshooting posts.  There are images on my site that have more hits than those two posts combined.  If I were strictly worried about page views, I’d probably have given up by now.

In contrast, some of the most popular posts are the ones I never put a second thought into.  How about my most popular article about the differences between HP and Cisco trunking?  I just fired that off as a way to keep it straight in my head.  Or how about my post about a throwaway line in a Star Trek movie that exploded on Reddit?  I never dreamed that those articles would be as big as they have ended up being.  I’m continually surprised by the things that end up being popular.

What does this mean for your blogging career?  It means that writing is the most important thing you can do.  You should invest time in creating good quality content.  But don’t get disappointed when people don’t find your post as fascinating as you.  Just get right back on your blogging horse and keep turning out the content.  Eventually, you’re going to find an unintentional gem that people are going to go wild about.

Despite the old adage, lightning does indeed strike twice.  The Empire State Building is hit about 100 times per year.  However, you never know when those strikes are going to hit.  Unless you are living in Hill Valley, California you can never know exactly when that bolt from the blue is going to come crashing down.  In much the same way, you shouldn’t second guess yourself when it comes to posting.  Just keep firing them out there until one hits it big.  Whether it be from endless retweets or a chance encounter with the front page of a news aggregator you just need to put virtual pen to virtual paper and hope for the best.

Cisco Live 2013 Wrap Up

Posted on by
4

Cisco Live Tweetup Pic 1

Cisco Live 2013 Tweetup Pic 2

Cisco Live 2013 in Orlando is in the books. I’m sitting in the airport once again thinking about what made this year so special. It’s interesting to see the huge number of people coming to events like this. All manner of folks that want to see what Cisco is bringing to the market as well as those that want to talk to the best and brightest in the networking world.

I arrived on Saturday afternoon after taking a direct flight from Tech Field Day 9 in Austin. I made sure to pack a few extra clothes to be sure I’d have something to wear in the Orlando heat. As soon as I arrived and checked into my hotel, I headed down to the registration desk. Once I picked up my NetVet badge, I headed right next door to the Social Media Hub:

CLUSSocMedHub

This area has grown substantially since its introduction at Cisco Live 2012.  And when you consider that my original meet up area was a corner table with three chairs, you can help but feel awed at this presentation. I was very impressed to see the lounge aspect fully realized and the ample amount of seating provided a great place for attendees to hang out between sessions. Many of the Twitter folks at Cisco Live like Justin Cohen (@Grinthock) and Patrick Swackhammer (@swackhap) even used the Social Media Hub to watch the keynote addresses and comment on Twitter as they happened. They might have even exceeded their tweet count for a given time period and gotten silenced. It was impressive to see social media being used as the primary method of giving feedback during these big events.

Speaking of social media, the Sunday evening tweetup was a huge success. We had more than 50 people packed into our little corner of the Social Media Hub enjoy good conversation and amazing company. We even got a surprise visit from the former host of Cisco Live, Carlos Dominguez (@carlosdominguez), who stopped by to chat for a bit. We had a chef making Cherries Jubilee along with all the caffeinated and sugary snacks that one could hope for. I jumped on a chair to say a quick “thank you” to all those that attended. Events like this are the way to show the higher ups at Cisco how important social media is to a coherent and vibrant business strategy going forward.

Transportation seemed to be a commonly discussed theme at the event this year, though not usually in a positive manner. While the hotel shuttle system was keeping up rather well with demand and even offered in-bus wifi connectivity, the whole system seemed to break down when forced to cope with large numbers. The CCIE party on Tuesday and Customer Appreciation Event (CAE) on Wednesday both had large numbers of folks waiting for a very small number of buses. The most commonly heard explanation was heavy traffic around the convention center. I would love to believe that, but the fact that a few hundred people were standing around in the oppressive Florida humidity waiting for one of the dwindling spots on the few running buses was what I remember more than anything else. While San Francisco is a much friendlier city for walking I’d rather avoid the issues from this year.

The best part of Cisco Live is the people. I rekindled so many outstanding friendships this year and made quite a few new ones as well. I was astounded at the number of people that would stop me in the hallway to say hello or thank me for writing. Almost everyone was appreciative of the input that I gave into all the social media events. Truth be told, I didn’t really do that much. I helped out with a couple of things here and there, but for the most part I let the incredible Cisco Live Social Media team led by Kathleen Mudge (@KathleenMudge) do everything possible to make the experience amazing. I just wrote a blog post or two about things. If anyone deserves credit, it’s them.

Tom’s Take

I think Cisco is finally starting to get it when it comes to social media. They are pulling out al the stops to enhance the experience through meeting spaces, additional access, and even real time information gathering. For once, it wasn’t an airbrushed tattoo that announced me to the world of Cisco Live 2013. It was this tweet about hotel wifi:

Others such as Blake Krone (@BlakeKrone) got their tweets in the keynotes as well. VMware has always had an edge when it comes to social media in my opinion. This year, Cisco closed that gap considerably. Some of the conversations that I had with decision makers highlighted the ability to involve large numbers of people in a very personal way. Those influencers then spread the word to others in an honest and genuine manner. They are the soul of Cisco Live.

I’m already starting to plan for Cisco Live 2014 in San Francisco. I plan on putting up a poll in the coming months so we can plan a time for the big sign picture instead of leaving it until the last minute. I want to involve everyone I can in submitting suggestions to the Cisco Live Social Media team. Anything you can think of to enhance the experience for everyone will go a long way to making the event the best it can be. From the bottom of my heart I want to say “thank you” to everyone at Cisco Live. See you next year in San Fran!

The SDNquisition

Posted on by
2

Inquisition

Network Engineer: Trouble in the data center.
Junior Admin: Oh no – what kind of trouble?
Network Engineer: VLAN PoC for VIP is SNAFU.
Junior Admin: Pardon?
Network Engineer: VLAN PoC for VIP is SNAFU.
Junior Admin: I don’t understand what you’re saying.
Network Engineer: [slightly irritatedly and with exaggeratedly clear accent] Virtual LAN Proof of Concept for the Very Important Person is…messed up.
Junior Admin: Well what on earth does that mean?
Network Engineer: *I* don’t know – the CIO just told me to come in here and say that there was trouble in the data center that’s all – I didn’t expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.

[JARRING CHORD]

[The door flies open and an SDN Developer  enters, flanked by two junior helpers. An SDN Assistant [Jones] has goggles pushed over his forehead. An SDN Blogger [Gilliam] is taking notes for the next article]

SDN Developer: NOBODY expects the SDNquisition! Our chief weapon is orchestration…orchestration and programmability…programmability and orchestration…. Our two weapons are programmability and orchestration…and Open Source development…. Our *three* weapons are programmability, orchestration, and Open Source development…and an almost fanatical devotion to disliking hardware…. Our *four*…no… *Amongst* our weapons…. Amongst our weaponry…are such elements as programmability, orchestration…. I’ll come in again.

[The Inquisition exits]

Network Engineer: I didn’t expect a kind of Inquisition.

[JARRING CHORD]

[The cardinals burst in]

SDN Developer: NOBODY expects the SDNquisition! Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: programmability, orchestration, Open Source development, an almost fanatical devotion to disliking hardware, and nice slide decks – Oh damn!
[To Cardinal SDN Assistant] I can’t say it – you’ll have to say it.
SDN Assistant: What?
SDN Developer: You’ll have to say the bit about ‘Our chief weapons are …’
SDN Assistant: [rather horrified]: I couldn’t do that…

[SDN Developer bundles the cardinals outside again]

Network Engineer: I didn’t expect a kind of Inquisition.

[JARRING CHORD]

[The cardinals enter]

SDN Assistant: Er…. Nobody…um….
SDN Developer: Expects…
SDN Assistant: Expects… Nobody expects the…um…the SDN…um…
SDN Developer: SDNquisition.
SDN Assistant: I know, I know! Nobody expects the SDNquisition. In fact, those who do expect –
SDN Developer: Our chief weapons are…
SDN Assistant: Our chief weapons are…um…er…
SDN Developer: Orchestration…
SDN Assistant: Orchestration and —
SDN Developer: Okay, stop. Stop. Stop there – stop there. Stop. Phew! Ah! … our chief weapons are Orchestration…blah blah blah. Cardinal, read the paradigm shift.
SDN Blogger: You are hereby charged that you did on diverse dates claim that hardware forwarding is preferred to software definition of networking…
SDN Assistant: That’s enough.
[To Junior Admin] Now, how do you plead?
Junior Admin: We’re innocent.
SDN Developer: Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

[DIABOLICAL LAUGHTER]

SDN Assistant: We’ll soon change your mind about that!

[DIABOLICAL ACTING]

SDN Developer: Programmability, orchestration, and Open Source– [controls himself with a supreme effort] Ooooh! Now, Cardinal — the API!

[SDN Assistant produces an API design definition. SDN Developer looks at it and clenches his teeth in an effort not to lose control. He hums heavily to cover his anger]

SDN Developer: You….Right! Open the IDE.

[SDN Blogger and SDN Assistant make a pathetic attempt to launch a cross-platform development kit]

SDN Developer: Right! What function will you software enable?
Junior Admin: VLAN creation?
SDN Developer: Ha! Right! Cardinal, write the API [oh dear] start a NETCONF parser.

[SDN Assistant stands their awkwardly and shrugs his shoulders]

SDN Assistant: I….
SDN Developer: [gritting his teeth] I *know*, I know you can’t. I didn’t want to say anything. I just wanted to try and ignore your dependence on old hardware constructs.
SDN Assistant: I…
SDN Developer: It makes it all seem so stupid.
SDN Assistant: Shall I…?
SDN Developer: No, just pretend for Casado’s sake. Ha! Ha! Ha!

[SDN Assistant types on an invisible keyboard at the IDE screen]

[Cut to them torturing a dear old lady, Marjorie Wilde]

SDN Developer: Now, old woman — you are accused of heresy on three counts — heresy by having no API definition, heresy by failure to virtualize network function, heresy by not purchasing an SDN startup for your own needs, and heresy by failure to have a shipping product — *four* counts. Do you confess?
Wilde: I don’t understand what I’m accused of.
SDN Developer: Ha! Then we’ll make you understand! SDN Assistant! Fetch…THE POWERPOINT!

[JARRING CHORD]

[SDN Assistant launches a popular presentation program]

SDN Assistant: Here it is, lord.
SDN Developer: Now, old lady — you have one last chance. Confess the heinous sin of heresy, reject the works of the hardware vendors — *two* last chances. And you shall be free — *three* last chances. You have three last chances, the nature of which I have divulged in my previous utterance.
Wilde: I don’t know what you’re talking about.
SDN Developer: Right! If that’s the way you want it — Cardinal! Animate the slides!

[SDN Assistant carries out this rather pathetic torture]

SDN Developer: Confess! Confess! Confess!
SDN Assistant: It doesn’t seem to be advancing to the next slide, lord.
SDN Developer: Have you got all the slides using the window shade dissolve?
SDN Assistant: Yes, lord.
SDN Developer [angrily closing the application]: Hm! She is made of harder stuff! Cardinal SDN Blogger! Fetch…THE NEEDLESSLY COMPLICATED VISIO DIAGRAM!

[JARRING CHORD]

[Zoom into SDN Blogger’s horrified face]

SDN Blogger [terrified]: The…Needlessly Complicated Visio Diagram?

[SDN Assistant produces a cluttered Visio diagram — a really cluttered one]

SDN Developer: So you think you are strong because you can survive the Powerpoint. Well, we shall see. SDN Assistant! Show her the Needlessly Complicated Visio Diagram!

[They shove the diagram into her face]

SDN Developer [with a cruel leer]: Now — you will study the Needlessly Complicated Visio Diagram until lunch time, with only a list of approved Open Flow primitives. [aside, to SDN Assistant] Is that really all it is?
SDN Assistant: Yes, lord.
SDN Developer: I see. I suppose we make it worse by shouting a lot, do we? Confess, woman. Confess! Confess! Confess! Confess
SDN Assistant: I confess!
SDN Developer: Not you!

Devaluing Experts – A Response

Posted on by
4

I was recently reading a blog post from Chris Jones (@IPv6Freely) about the certification process from the perspective of Juniper and Cisco. He talks about his view of the value of a certification that allows you to recertify from a dissimilar track, such as the CCIE, as opposed to a certification program that requires you to use the same recertification test to maintain your credentials, such as the JNCIE. I figured that any comment I had would run much longer than the allowed length, so I decided to write it down here.

I do understand where Chris is coming from when he talks about the potential loss of knowledge in allowing CCIEs to recert from a dissimilar certification track. At the time of this writing, there are six distinct tracks, not to mention the retired tracks, such as Voice, Storage, and many others. Chris’s contention is that allowing a Routing and Switching CCIE to continue to recertify from the Data Center or Wireless track causes them to lose their edge when it comes to R&S knowledge. The counterpoint to that argument is that the method of using the same (or updated) test in the certified track as the singular recertification option is superior because it ensures the engineer is always up on current knowledge in their field.

My counter argument to that post is two fold. The first point that I would debate is that the world of IT doesn’t exist in a vacuum. When I started in IT, I was a desktop repair technician. As I gradually migrated my skill set to server-based skills and then to networking, I found that my previous knowledge was important to continue forward but that not all of it was necessary. There are core concepts that are critical to any IT person, such as the operation of a CPU or the function of RAM. But beyond the requirement to answer a test question is it really crucial that I remember the hex address of COM4 in DOS 5.0? My skill set grew and changed as a VAR engineer to include topics such as storage, voice, security, and even returning to servers by way of virtualization. I was spending my time working with new technology while still utilizing my old skills. Does that mean that I needed stop what I was working on every 1.5 years to start studying the old CCIE R&S curriculum to ensure that I remembered what OSPF LSA types are present in a totally stubby area? Or is it more important to understand how SDN is impacting the future of networking while not having any significant concrete configuration examples from which to generate test questions?

I would argue that giving an engineer an option to maintain existing knowledge badges by allowing new technology to refresh those badges is a great idea for vendors that want to keep fresh technology flowing into their organization. The risk of forcing your engineers into a track without an incentive to stay current comes in when you have a really smart engineer that is not capable of thinking beyond their certification area. Think about the old telecommunications engineers that have spent years upon years in their wiring closets working with SS7 or 66-blocks. They didn’t have an incentive or need to learn how voice over IP (VoIP) worked. Now that their job function has been replaced by something they don’t understand many of them are scrambling to retrain or face being left behind in the market. As Steven Tyler once sang, “If you do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got.”

Continuous Learning

The second part of my counterpoint is that the only true way to maintain the level of knowledge required for certification shouldn’t rely on 50-100 multiple choice questions. Any expert-level program should allow for the use of continuing education to recertify the credential on a yearly basis. This is how the legal bar system works. It’s also how (ISC)2’s CISSP program works. By demonstrating that you are acquiring new knowledge continually and contributing to the greater knowledge base you are automatically put into a position that allows you to continue to hold your certification. It’s a smart concept that creates information and ensures that the holders of those certifications stay current on new knowledge. Think for moment about changing the topics of an exam. If the exam is changed every two years there is a potential for a gap in knowledge to occur. If someone were recertified on the last day of the CCIE version 3 exam, it would have been almost two years before they had to take an exam that required any knowledge of MPLS, which is becoming an increasingly common enterprise core protocol. Is it fair that the person that took the written exam the next day was required to know about MPLS? What happens if that CCIEv3 gets a job working with MPLS a few months later. According to the current version 4 curriculum they CCIE should know about MPLS. Within the confines of the certification program the user has failed to demonstrate familiarity with the topic.

Instead, if we ensure that the current certification holders are studying new topics such as MPLS or SDN or any manner of networking-related discussions we can be reasonably sure they are conversant with what the current state of the industry looks like. There is no knowledge gap because new topics can be introduced quickly as they become relevant. There is no fear that someone following the letter of the certification law and recertifying on the same material will run into something they haven’t seen before because of a timing issue. Continuous improvement is a much better method in my mind.

Tom’s Take

Recertification is going to be a sticky topic no matter how it’s sliced. Some will favor allowing engineers to spread their wings and become conversant in many enterprise and service provider topics. Still others will insist that the only way to truly be an expert in a field is to study those topics exclusively. Still others will say that a melding of the two approaches is needed, either through continuous improvement or true lab recertification. I think the end result is the same no matter the case. What’s needed is an agile group of engineers that is capable of not only being an expert at their field but is also encouraged to do things outside their comfort zone without fear of losing that which they have worked so hard to accomplish. That’s valuable no matter how you frame it.

Note that this post was not intended to be an attack against any person or any company listed herein. It is intended as a counterpoint discussion of the topics.