VLAN confusion
-
@scottalanmiller said in VLAN confusion:
@dave247 said in VLAN confusion:
They've mentioned setting up a VLAN for the phone system and setting up a voice router for it.
Of course he has, your CIO decided on this path when he brought in a Cisco networking salesman to screw the company. That decision was made ahead of time. Cisco uses their phones as a leader to get companies to buy inappropriate networking equipment. This is a completely "by the book" unscrupulous sales tactic for VoIP sales people.
Well we are probably going to go with them and I might not have much of a say... so it's going to be difficult for me to try to pressure these people to install a system in a way different than how they usually do it. Is there any material I can reference to "prove" that VLAN's are not needed and that voice and data are fine on the same network? Actually, now that i think of it, our current voice and data are on the same network and we have no issues.
Also, regarding QoS, didn't you mention something about having the QoS set up on the VoIP RTP service rather than the voice VLAN?
-
@coliver said in VLAN confusion:
@dave247 said in VLAN confusion:
@coliver said in VLAN confusion:
@dave247 Sounds like your company has made a decision already.
The CIO has failed at one of the most basic life skills...
"Never take advice from a sales person."
Yes, I am aware of this sigh but I can only do so much. I don't want to get into the details of my work dynamic with my boss and all that, and long story-short, I have to do what he says as I am the only sysadmin/low man on the totem pole.
Then you're done. The company has made a decision and it's your job to implement and support it. Not your monkey not your circus as far as the purchasing decisions go.
Depends. In a healthy business of any type, anyone in IT knowing that there is something unethical going on and a breach (a rogue CIO using the company for personal gain or putting it at risk for fun is a serious breach) is in a position of "mandatory reporter." The business trusts its staff to report things like this, how else does it find out?
-
@dave247 said in VLAN confusion:
Didn't you mention something about having the QoS set up on the VoIP RTP service rather than the voice VLAN?
That is the only way to actually force the voice service to get QoS. Otherwise everything on the VLAN is getting the same high priority.
Granted there should not be much else on there, but it is not technically providing QoS to the VOICE traffic.
-
@dave247 said in VLAN confusion:
@scottalanmiller said in VLAN confusion:
@dave247 said in VLAN confusion:
They've mentioned setting up a VLAN for the phone system and setting up a voice router for it.
Of course he has, your CIO decided on this path when he brought in a Cisco networking salesman to screw the company. That decision was made ahead of time. Cisco uses their phones as a leader to get companies to buy inappropriate networking equipment. This is a completely "by the book" unscrupulous sales tactic for VoIP sales people.
Well we are probably going to go with them and I might not have much of a say... so it's going to be difficult for me to try to pressure these people to install a system in a way different than how they usually do it. Is there any material I can reference to "prove" that VLAN's are not needed and that voice and data are fine on the same network? Actually, now that i think of it, our current voice and data are on the same network and we have no issues.
Also, regarding QoS, didn't you mention something about having the QoS set up on the VoIP RTP service rather than the voice VLAN?
Things to take to your CEO (I'd honestly share this thread with him and tell him that I'm local, have an SEC background, have worked with Ray Dalio, have been in the biggest banks and hedges in the world, and will happily stop by to discuss financial ethics and rogue actors issues with him to explain the problem being perceived) would include...
https://www.smbitjournal.com/2011/07/never-get-advice-from-a-reseller-or-vendor/
https://www.smbitjournal.com/2016/06/buyers-and-sellers-agents-in-it/
https://www.smbitjournal.com/2017/07/the-social-contract-of-sales/And...
-
@scottalanmiller said in VLAN confusion:
@coliver said in VLAN confusion:
@dave247 Sounds like your company has made a decision already.
The CIO has failed at one of the most basic life skills...
"Never take advice from a sales person."
Yes, he has failed at adulting or, far more likely being that he has made it to CIO level, at ethics. The most likely scenario is that there are direct kickbacks going on.
Yes, I've heard a lot of this from you through previous posts on the S****works forums and I hear where you are coming from and get that you probably have a lot of reasons to make that assumption. People are insanely corrupt. That being said, from my impression of everyone that I work with at my company (which is a local family owned business, not a corporation) is that everyone here is pretty nice and trusting. So I think if there is any failure on the part of my CIO, its that he's not very knowledgeable with the current IT industry and he's very trusting in people. I know you might then reply with the question of why he's a CIO at all.. he is mainly involved with high level policy and procedure for several of our departments and helps ensure that we meet regulation and pass audits, and he has very good business acumen, but as I said, he's a bit behind in the world of IT these days, regarding the technical/hands-on stuff.
-
@dave247 said in VLAN confusion:
That being said, from my impression of everyone that I work with at my company (which is a local family owned business, not a corporation) is that everyone here is pretty nice and trusting.
That's exactly the kinds of businesses I see have this happen to them all of the time. I've seen small family businesses have everything stolen from them by a family "friend" that even took his vacations with them!
If the CIO legitimately wants to protect the business, he'll not just accept but invite a discussion about where there is a huge problem with the interaction here. If he's on the take, he'll not be happy about it.
Anyone can make a mistake, how he reacts to it being exposed would tell you if it is a mistake or intentional.
-
@dave247 said in VLAN confusion:
So I think if there is any failure on the part of my CIO, its that he's not very knowledgeable with the current IT industry and he's very trusting in people.
No, neither of those things is a possible factor. Literally, impossible.
-
@dave247 said in VLAN confusion:
(which is a local family owned business, not a corporation)
This should be a red flag I feel like.
-
@dave247 said in VLAN confusion:
I know you might then reply with the question of why he's a CIO at all.. he is mainly involved with high level policy and procedure for several of our departments and helps ensure that we meet regulation and pass audits, and he has very good business acumen, but as I said, he's a bit behind in the world of IT these days, regarding the technical/hands-on stuff.
That's fine to say. But the issue we have here is that he is failing at business acumen. That is the sole issue. His technical competence was never mentioned. That he needs help technically is clear. But what you are missing is that we are only discussing his business competence or ethics, and that is the failing.
If you believe he's a skilled businessman, that tells us that you then must believe that he is a crook. Because this is insanely basic business stuff that he's doing wrong in the standard, unethical way that someone on the take does.
-
@dave247 said in VLAN confusion:
... but as I said, he's a bit behind in the world of IT these days, regarding the technical/hands-on stuff.
Why do you think that this matters? The issues are...
- Turning to a salesman for advice.
- Listening to someone paid to act against the company.
- Not doing due diligence.
- Avoiding the most basic business rules for acting ethically.
In the issue above, none are affected, in any way, by technical knowledge. Someone who has never even heard of computers would have no issues avoiding the problems here.
-
@scottalanmiller said in VLAN confusion:
@dave247 said in VLAN confusion:
@coliver said in VLAN confusion:
@dave247 Sounds like your company has made a decision already.
The CIO has failed at one of the most basic life skills...
"Never take advice from a sales person."
Yes, I am aware of this sigh but I can only do so much. I don't want to get into the details of my work dynamic with my boss and all that, and long story-short, I have to do what he says as I am the only sysadmin/low man on the totem pole.
In a healthy company, that statement should get you in trouble - because knowing that you have a security / ethics breach and a rogue actor putting the company at risk should be something that the company doesn't just allow you to expose, but requires you to expose. Does the CEO really not want to know that he has a CIO abusing the company for personal reasons?
It's comments like this that make this hard to accept. It's not that it's not possible - but how do you know his CIO is abusing the company for personal reasons? It's every bit more likely that he's simply failing at his job of researching good solution - and that no reasons other than laziness are really involved here.
-
@dashrender said in VLAN confusion:
@scottalanmiller said in VLAN confusion:
@dave247 said in VLAN confusion:
@coliver said in VLAN confusion:
@dave247 Sounds like your company has made a decision already.
The CIO has failed at one of the most basic life skills...
"Never take advice from a sales person."
Yes, I am aware of this sigh but I can only do so much. I don't want to get into the details of my work dynamic with my boss and all that, and long story-short, I have to do what he says as I am the only sysadmin/low man on the totem pole.
In a healthy company, that statement should get you in trouble - because knowing that you have a security / ethics breach and a rogue actor putting the company at risk should be something that the company doesn't just allow you to expose, but requires you to expose. Does the CEO really not want to know that he has a CIO abusing the company for personal reasons?
It's comments like this that make this hard to accept. It's not that it's not possible - but how do you know his CIO is abusing the company for personal reasons? It's every bit more likely that he's simply failing at his job of researching good solution - and that no reasons other than laziness are really involved here.
Nope, you just made an impossibly illogical excuse to try to make it look like what I said isn't the obvious answer. That's how extremely irrational it is to try to defend.
The issue is NOT his ability to research or to know anything technical. The issue is a fundamental ethics breach of his job duties. Any mentioning of a lack of ability or skill in a technical or research area I see as meaning someone has agreed with the lack of ethics and is failing to attempt to rationalize how something so obviously unethical must have a viable excuse.
Stop and examine the situation. Obviously, something unethical has happened. It's so obvious, so clear, that the real issue is... how is everyone closer to the situation not pointing it out and talking about it?
-
@scottalanmiller said in VLAN confusion:
@dave247 said in VLAN confusion:
I know you might then reply with the question of why he's a CIO at all.. he is mainly involved with high level policy and procedure for several of our departments and helps ensure that we meet regulation and pass audits, and he has very good business acumen, but as I said, he's a bit behind in the world of IT these days, regarding the technical/hands-on stuff.
That's fine to say. But the issue we have here is that he is failing at business acumen. That is the sole issue. His technical competence was never mentioned. That he needs help technically is clear. But what you are missing is that we are only discussing his business competence or ethics, and that is the failing.
If you believe he's a skilled businessman, that tells us that you then must believe that he is a crook. Because this is insanely basic business stuff that he's doing wrong in the standard, unethical way that someone on the take does.
Strange how all my posts with you end up at this point. LMAO. Look, a lot of what you are saying is probably true to some extent, but I really don't want to get fired from my first IT gig by trying to prove that my boss is not qualified/on the take/doing things wrong for the business/etc. He and my company owners are good friends so I'm not going to get anywhere by running to the CEO (Our company hierarchy is pretty flat by the way). My company owners and my boss are genuinely good people, and I do get the impression that we get taken advantage of by sales people a lot, but I have a hard time trying to convince my boss of things sometimes due to his lack of IT-knowledge.
I don't know.. I didn't mean for this to devolve into another discussion about the dysfunction of my company.. but that's the thread I pulled again I guess.
I'll do what I can to see about keeping out phones and computers on the same LAN and try not to get RAPED by Cisco sales associates...
in the meantime, are there any good voice solution alternatives that you guys could provide? Part of our requirement for our phones is that we may not want to have it cloud-hosted due to the fact that our internet connection goes down every so often during business hours. YES I get that this is another problem that should be resolved vs applying a bandaid, but we live out in the country and have limited ISP options (Spec---m and Centu---ink).
-
@dashrender said in VLAN confusion:
....he has a CIO abusing the company for personal reasons?
It's comments like this that make this hard to accept.
So if you are convinced this might not be a bad actor scenario. Paint me this picture of where someone that is an adult, and paid to protect a company from things like salesman, whose sole job is to be the overseer of this department, has not only invited a salesman to run the company, allowed that salesman to violate best practices, and has shut down his technical staff paid to advise him when bad technical or business practices are happening?
Tell me where the wiggle room is for an ethical engagement here.
-
@scottalanmiller said in VLAN confusion:
@dashrender said in VLAN confusion:
@scottalanmiller said in VLAN confusion:
@dave247 said in VLAN confusion:
@coliver said in VLAN confusion:
@dave247 Sounds like your company has made a decision already.
The CIO has failed at one of the most basic life skills...
"Never take advice from a sales person."
Yes, I am aware of this sigh but I can only do so much. I don't want to get into the details of my work dynamic with my boss and all that, and long story-short, I have to do what he says as I am the only sysadmin/low man on the totem pole.
In a healthy company, that statement should get you in trouble - because knowing that you have a security / ethics breach and a rogue actor putting the company at risk should be something that the company doesn't just allow you to expose, but requires you to expose. Does the CEO really not want to know that he has a CIO abusing the company for personal reasons?
It's comments like this that make this hard to accept. It's not that it's not possible - but how do you know his CIO is abusing the company for personal reasons? It's every bit more likely that he's simply failing at his job of researching good solution - and that no reasons other than laziness are really involved here.
Nope, you just made an impossibly illogical excuse to try to make it look like what I said isn't the obvious answer. That's how extremely irrational it is to try to defend.
The issue is NOT his ability to research or to know anything technical. The issue is a fundamental ethics breach of his job duties. Any mentioning of a lack of ability or skill in a technical or research area I see as meaning someone has agreed with the lack of ethics and is failing to attempt to rationalize how something so obviously unethical must have a viable excuse.
Stop and examine the situation. Obviously, something unethical has happened. It's so obvious, so clear, that the real issue is... how is everyone closer to the situation not pointing it out and talking about it?
I assume you're referring to the fact that he's talking to a sales person, and not a buyer's agent?
-
@dashrender said in VLAN confusion:
@scottalanmiller said in VLAN confusion:
@dave247 said in VLAN confusion:
@coliver said in VLAN confusion:
@dave247 Sounds like your company has made a decision already.
The CIO has failed at one of the most basic life skills...
"Never take advice from a sales person."
Yes, I am aware of this sigh but I can only do so much. I don't want to get into the details of my work dynamic with my boss and all that, and long story-short, I have to do what he says as I am the only sysadmin/low man on the totem pole.
In a healthy company, that statement should get you in trouble - because knowing that you have a security / ethics breach and a rogue actor putting the company at risk should be something that the company doesn't just allow you to expose, but requires you to expose. Does the CEO really not want to know that he has a CIO abusing the company for personal reasons?
It's comments like this that make this hard to accept. It's not that it's not possible - but how do you know his CIO is abusing the company for personal reasons? It's every bit more likely that he's simply failing at his job of researching good solution - and that no reasons other than laziness are really involved here.
Yes, this. I 100% believe this is far more accurate description of what's going on vs corrupt employees "on the take".
-
@dave247 said in VLAN confusion:
He and my company owners are good friends so I'm not going to get anywhere by running to the CEO (Our company hierarchy is pretty flat by the way).
Read: We know he's on the take and has the leverage to keep it that way.
If you know he's a crook and the CEO doesn't care and would punish you for exposing him, then say so up front. Don't pretend he's got skills or cares or is ethical. You should never try to cover up a known ethics violation because it makes you look confused and you're logic will be trivial to expose. That you know he's a crook, you know that the company will punish you and doesn't care that he's stealing from them, then all you need to do is lead with that.
But then it begs the question, what's the purpose of the question if your technical point is to try to protect the company, but you know that doing so will get you fired for exposing the CIO's shuffling of funds around?
-
@dave247 said in VLAN confusion:
@dashrender said in VLAN confusion:
@scottalanmiller said in VLAN confusion:
@dave247 said in VLAN confusion:
@coliver said in VLAN confusion:
@dave247 Sounds like your company has made a decision already.
The CIO has failed at one of the most basic life skills...
"Never take advice from a sales person."
Yes, I am aware of this sigh but I can only do so much. I don't want to get into the details of my work dynamic with my boss and all that, and long story-short, I have to do what he says as I am the only sysadmin/low man on the totem pole.
In a healthy company, that statement should get you in trouble - because knowing that you have a security / ethics breach and a rogue actor putting the company at risk should be something that the company doesn't just allow you to expose, but requires you to expose. Does the CEO really not want to know that he has a CIO abusing the company for personal reasons?
It's comments like this that make this hard to accept. It's not that it's not possible - but how do you know his CIO is abusing the company for personal reasons? It's every bit more likely that he's simply failing at his job of researching good solution - and that no reasons other than laziness are really involved here.
Yes, this. I 100% believe this is far more accurate description of what's going on vs corrupt employees "on the take".
Scott considers the act of not protecting a company from sale personal to be on the take/corrupt.
-
@dave247 said in VLAN confusion:
@dashrender said in VLAN confusion:
@scottalanmiller said in VLAN confusion:
@dave247 said in VLAN confusion:
@coliver said in VLAN confusion:
@dave247 Sounds like your company has made a decision already.
The CIO has failed at one of the most basic life skills...
"Never take advice from a sales person."
Yes, I am aware of this sigh but I can only do so much. I don't want to get into the details of my work dynamic with my boss and all that, and long story-short, I have to do what he says as I am the only sysadmin/low man on the totem pole.
In a healthy company, that statement should get you in trouble - because knowing that you have a security / ethics breach and a rogue actor putting the company at risk should be something that the company doesn't just allow you to expose, but requires you to expose. Does the CEO really not want to know that he has a CIO abusing the company for personal reasons?
It's comments like this that make this hard to accept. It's not that it's not possible - but how do you know his CIO is abusing the company for personal reasons? It's every bit more likely that he's simply failing at his job of researching good solution - and that no reasons other than laziness are really involved here.
Yes, this. I 100% believe this is far more accurate description of what's going on vs corrupt employees "on the take".
But his explanation clearly shows that any defense of the CIO is a panic emotional response with no logical connection. His reasoning is disconnected from the situation and highlights my point.
-
@dashrender said in VLAN confusion:
@dave247 said in VLAN confusion:
@dashrender said in VLAN confusion:
@scottalanmiller said in VLAN confusion:
@dave247 said in VLAN confusion:
@coliver said in VLAN confusion:
@dave247 Sounds like your company has made a decision already.
The CIO has failed at one of the most basic life skills...
"Never take advice from a sales person."
Yes, I am aware of this sigh but I can only do so much. I don't want to get into the details of my work dynamic with my boss and all that, and long story-short, I have to do what he says as I am the only sysadmin/low man on the totem pole.
In a healthy company, that statement should get you in trouble - because knowing that you have a security / ethics breach and a rogue actor putting the company at risk should be something that the company doesn't just allow you to expose, but requires you to expose. Does the CEO really not want to know that he has a CIO abusing the company for personal reasons?
It's comments like this that make this hard to accept. It's not that it's not possible - but how do you know his CIO is abusing the company for personal reasons? It's every bit more likely that he's simply failing at his job of researching good solution - and that no reasons other than laziness are really involved here.
Yes, this. I 100% believe this is far more accurate description of what's going on vs corrupt employees "on the take".
Scott considers the act of not protecting a company from sale personal to be on the take/corrupt.
Because it is. It's his job, paying someone else to do his job for him without disclosing it is theft.
