AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@lsi.com
RQ:
SSV:mhbs.lsil.com
NSV:
SSH:
R:<Brian.Stark@lsi.com>,<Richard.Hardiman@lsi.com>
MAID:2
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
RMID:#imap/LSI/INBOX	0	E1EC65251D4B3D46BBC0AAA3C0629222B00807E2@cosmail02.lsi.com
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:01:18 -0800
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@lsi.com>
To: "Stark, Brian" <Brian.Stark@lsi.com>
Cc: "Hardiman, Richard" <Richard.Hardiman@lsi.com>
Subject: Re: problem with new lab network switches
Message-ID: <20091214150118.41b63ff7@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <E1EC65251D4B3D46BBC0AAA3C0629222B00807E2@cosmail02.lsi.com>
References: <20091209153523.3b815785@ripper.onstor.net>
	<E1EC65251D4B3D46BBC0AAA3C0629222B007FC77@cosmail02.lsi.com>
	<20091209163603.5a49fa1f@ripper.onstor.net>
	<E1EC65251D4B3D46BBC0AAA3C0629222B00807E2@cosmail02.lsi.com>
Organization: LSI
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Well, that's some good news.  IT can just "hand them over"  -- they
don't even need to install them.  The problem was that they have this
re-IP thrust they are backing and are tying the switches to that in
order to get that effort dragged along by the need for the switches.
Which is not right, especially since I don't see us ever re-IPing the
lab.  My current plan is just to stop routing 10.X.X.X lab addresses
outside the building.  They can give use the IP space and the DNS
entries, and we'll handle the rest.


On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:41:52 -0700 "Stark, Brian" <Brian.Stark@lsi.com>
wrote:

> Guys,
> 
> Just talked with Karen Crane on this.  She's going to light a fire to
> get IT to install them.  I also said that Rich was available to help
> with this and that we needed them installed asap.
> 
> She also made it perfectly clear that these switches are for
> engineering lab use and won't be re-purposed for anything else.
> She's definitely on our side here.
> 
> Lastly, she mentioned that for anything that plugs into corporate IT
> in any way, there will be some IT oversight.  It sounds like that's
> the way it works within LSI IT -- we can fight this later if needed.
> Let's get the switches installed first since we have an immediate
> need.
> 
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Sharp [mailto:andy.sharp@lsi.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:36 PM
> To: Stark, Brian
> Cc: Hardiman, Richard
> Subject: Re: problem with new lab network switches
> 
> One switch will link the lab to the rest of the network, the rest will
> be lab-only.  That will be virtual 'one' since there might be a
> redundant link.  However, that 'one' will probably be the backbone
> switch for the lab, so that will be its major role.  Routing to the IT
> network will be a minor role, and not something that has a lot of
> volatility.  That link will essentially be a default route for that
> switch, so no major overlap there.
> 
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 17:01:35 -0700 "Stark, Brian" <Brian.Stark@lsi.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Andy,
> > 
> > Just so I'm clear, will these switches be used to link Elab to the
> > rest of the LSI network?  I think that's the case, but I'd like to
> > confirm.
> > 
> > 
> > Brian
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andrew Sharp [mailto:andy.sharp@lsi.com] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 3:35 PM
> > To: Stark, Brian
> > Cc: Hardiman, Richard
> > Subject: problem with new lab network switches
> > 
> > Hi Brian,
> > 
> > I got an update from Rich H. today, and it seems that our cisco
> > switches for the lab have been hijacked by LSI IT, best I can tell.
> > 
> > As far as I'm concerned, those switches belong to us, not IT, and no
> > way in hell should they be holding them back and tying them to other
> > programs they have going, like re-doing onstor's IP space.  Rich
> > tells me that Rich Miller isn't letting us have them and they plan
> > on owning those switches and not deploying them until they complete
> > a plan for re-IPing our whole building, lab included, as well as a
> > few other IT ventures they have going.
> > 
> > These various IT movements are completely separate from the elab
> > switches and I'm just really surprised that IT is trying to tie them
> > together.
> > 
> > We need those switches now-1 week.  We've already run into problems
> > that we could have avoided if we had deployed these switches that
> > are just sitting in a closet somewhere, if not actually installed
> > in some other location, which is something I'm starting to suspect.
> > 
> > I'm also told that Karen is making unhappy noises that we have yet
> > to install these switches that she went to great lengths to acquire
> > for us, so I believe she's on our side in this.
> > 
> > I want to make it clear to these folks that, as far as I'm
> > concerned, Rich H. is the "owner" of those switches and we won't be
> > installing the tacacs client software on them which allows anyone
> > in LSI IT to log into them and make lots of really helpful
> > changes ... you get the idea.  Any switches outside the lab, that's
> > different, but inside the lab, only Rich and people deemed worthy
> > by Rich, etc., will be able to access those switches and make
> > config changes.
> > 
> > Our schedules depend on that chain of responsibility.  They're
> > already talking about not even having a plan to present to us until
> > January, never mind a deployment date.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > a
