Exactly, I have view points on what I would have done differently, but they don't necessarily apply to someone else.
I can only relay what I have done and what it has meant for me, as well as what other people have done and put him/her in touch with them. At least give them some contacts who they can talk to further.
No I am not, but I can provide a good level of sound career advice. It's just that discussing that stuff I don't feel comfortable with in a public forum.
If you go out and do the courses you can get yourself a good job. If you go out and get a degree you can get a good job. Either one will help. Aus is an interesting market like that, you can get some good experience there (To a point) which you just can't get in other countries for different reasons; it's a cultural thing. But there are some jobs that you will go for (And this might not affect you for 10+ years) that people will want a degree for. I also know people who are still working in their 60s in the industry earning good money without them.
Take a look for my earlier comments, I know the market and am willing to talk to you on the phone.
I am not going to tell this person what to do, I can only relate what I have done and what others have done. I have worked in the market which he / she is in right now. I have good friends who are managers in large organisations and I have literally hundreds of contacts in that area in the place that he / she is going to work. However, I am not willing to discuss the ins and outs of my career who I have worked for and what's happening in a public forum.
He / She can take what they want and make their own mind up. I personally don't believe it is for anyone here to tell someone what to do.
Broadcasts such as NetBIOS and mdns do not cross subnet barriers
NetBIOS as a protocol in and of itself, isn't routable. NetBIOS traffic over IP is. Typical NetBIOS traffic that you would see ordinarily is broadcast and doesn't cross subnet boundaries. Resolution such as WINS and NetBIOS usage through WINS can be routed however. See example below.
How? It's a chicken or the egg scenario. How do you know that you need to resolve a name and service to an ip address unless the remote host broadcasts that the service is there and awaiting resolution? NetBIOS serves that purpose. Name resolution alone won't tell you what services are available. mdns broadcasts (ie, in a/24 x.x.x.255) presence, services, such as ssh, smb, etc, and lets you know that you might want to resolve that name to an IP address, and handily gives you that as well. mdns won't cross subnet boundaries, and pptp is a routed protocol, thus you never get that broadcast.
You have 10 workstations on subnet A, WINS server on subnet B, and remote workstations on subnet C.
If the workstations on subnet A and workstations on subnet C have a WINS server on subnet B set as part of their configuration (By whatever means, static DHCP etc) then they will all get a browse list. They will all be able to see network shares. Provided that they aren't hidden (\\servername\sharename$).
SSH and other services are not covered, you won't see these. In actual fact this is one of the biggest downfalls of Active Directory in my opinion, aside from speed, Novell eDirectory and other directory products handle other services quite well. In the old days of NT and WINS, you could use DNS for resolution of any name, including accessing the server services themselves if you knew the name. In the example above, the list you see in Network Neighborhood however couldn't be enumerated without WINS.
In the old days you relied on the elections on the local subnet for each workgroup. The workgroup is actually a workgroup or a domain, but they all had elections. This is part of the NetBIOS broadcast on the local subnet. There is an article at the microsoft site that discusses browser elections. Workstations, servers, PDC, BDC, uptime and a number of other factors weighed in as to who became the master browser. There was usually a backup browser elected as well.
If you wanted to connect into that network across subnets in the old Microsoft realm, the way to do that was WINS. The way to enumerate stuff now is all from Active Directory, you can publish SQL servers, file shares, printers in AD. By default, you can't publish something that's not Microsofts.
In your instance, given that you are connecting Macs and things, and they don't have an Active Directory client (Well by default, you can use LDAP for all sorts of things) your best option is to use WINS if it supports it (I don't support Macs so I don't know). My theory would have been that you would have had to use DNS and just know what hostnames you are going for. You can still query the server service for available resources, and this is typically how a windows workstation operates.
WINS does the job, but it is still a chicken or egg problem. It will resolve the name, but you have to know ahead of time that you want to resolve the name for some purpose. Without broadcast, there's not way to know to put that machine into network neighborhood.
You don't have to broadcast to WINS, you can route traffic to WINS. At a large company I used to work for (about 70,000 people globally) we had one local WINS server in our country, and then a regional server in another country. Each DHCP scope had it's countries WINS server, and the regional server in the settings it gave out. There were 4 or 5 regional servers that would talk to each other.
That gave you a browse list, it told you the description of the box if set, the s
proprietary "VPN through Internet Explorer" solution
Most likely Citrix Access Gateway, I have seen it used a lot. Works reasonably well, few bugs though and no security certifications.
In either case, PPTP is a routing protocol,
Nope, PPTP is not a routing protocol. EIGRP and BGP are routing protocols.
PPTP is PPP over a GRE connection with a control session for GRE on TCP 1723. and despite pulling the wool over your eyes, you do NOT have an IP on the system physical subnet.
Got a link on this one? There is no reason you can't give out an IP address from a PPTP server which is on the same subnet as the ethernet card of the PPTP server.
Broadcasts such as NetBIOS and mdns do not cross subnet barriers.
Broadcast? No, ARP? Yes.
ARP does work across a PPP link, so you might find that a customer is using ARP for name resolution. That really wouldn't be the brightest move as far as I was concerned, but it's a possibility.
The other alternative is that as people connect into their PPTP servers, they are given WINS server settings which will assist in them being able to see a browse list
Name resolution doesn't get you network neighborhood population.
Actually if it's WINS, it will do it nicely.
She was using a Firebox firewall to do the pptp vpn, and apparently you can't push the search parameter. yay
My guess here is that you are talking about sending multiple DNS server suffixes through DHCP.
The intention to do this really hasn't been picked up by too many people. It was first discussed in RFC 3397 but Microsoft hasn't implemented it yet, Apple might have for zeroconf and ISC has done so for DHCPd.
My personal opinion here is that you need to learn a bit more about how windows name resolution works (The old way, before AD) as you seem a bit confused.
For future reference, even though I would consider it dilapidated, WINS does do the job of allowing machines to discover other machines across subnets quite well.
The other suggestion I would have had would have been to just provide a link on the desktop to the NAS so that way DNS is involved only, and nothing more. Either that or just mount up the required shares and close the call
Yep, fair call, nobody wants to pay more for it, suprise suprise suprise.
Do it the way that everyone else does it when they are financially constrained, buy HD when the life cycles end. So the cameras and other stuff that CBC would normally replace every 2 years (Provided they act like the other TV stations I know), go HD then. The video editing suite, that will eventually need to be upgraded (Usually happens every 4 - 5 years), do it then. Most people that do digital content creation pay for themselves (Make a profit) anyway, so just tell them they need to HD and then go back to playing golf.
Yes, there are financial constraints to going HD, but then there are financial constraints to running a business too. Over the next few years everyone else will be replacing kit, and they will be buying HD which means that sooner or later, everything that CBC gets given for broadcast is going to be HD.
25%, quite possibly now, that's fine, but in the future, everything is going to be HD and CBC aren't going to have an option as few people will be providing SD equipment to purchase. IF it's there, it will cost more money and won't be standard with the rest of the kit.
Really, this is a null and void arguement that they make that everyone else is going through.
Upgrading kit and increasing the quality of the standard broadcast costs a LOT of money, I know this all too well. Considering however that a major overhaul like this hasn't gone through the industry for 30 years in most countries, the amount of expenditure up front to move now is scaring people. It's the same with Vista and Office 2007 and everything else.
For a business to remain competitive it really does need to look at continual gains in productivity. A business also has a client base that grows, and a customer base to support. To support those users effectively you need IS. Try managing 1,000,000 users in an ISP environment without some form of automation. It's essentially impossible. It is impossible to do so while keeping a price that makes the product accessible. There unfortunately isn't a way around it.
Think about the associated human costs, are you going to pay double for your broadband if the ISP that you use employs double the amount of people to provide the same service?
The increasing amount of people in society provide additional business oppurtunities as well as additional jobs for people to do. Imagine trying to support a business of today on computers and business practices from 1990. Business as a concept itself hasn't changed much but Information Systems certainly have. These changes also bring about additional work in and of itself.
Overall, there are times when I question how much of a benefit of putting small businesses onto computers can be, but for larger ones or ones supporting large amounts of other people, it's close to impossible to avoid.
From what I saw from his talk 10 years ago to today, I can see a lot of things that haven't played out and a lot of things that have. WAP was one of them. The interfaces sucked, and that was brought up. Everyone is using wireless data (In all forms) to get access to their standard interfaces essentially. Wireless is getting faster, and it's being used to replace a cable. That's not visionary at all, anyone could have seen that happening, we also know that the cable is always going to be faster as it's a known quantity, air is not.
Talking about RFID and it's uses and what it's going to be used for probably won't be as quickly adopted as some people hope, but at the same time, a lot of what they were working on is coming through. The business benefits are there. This is what was talked about, and time thus far is proving him / them (BT Research) right.
I never read one of the future prediction documents, so I am not in a position to comment.
This is true to a degree, there is only so much that one person can do by themselves. Yes, there is tasks that can be completed by a single person, but it will get the point where we will change as people and they way that we work and we will be able to collaborate better. Virtual teams and the likes exist now, but we will still have a requirement for interaction. When mobile, although this is possible, it isn't as possible as face to face, this change will allow us to still give even more output while moving. AI will assist in this.
This is starting to filter through now, but will still take a little while more to get traction. Higher speed bandwidth for mobile users will allow this to happen more. Sitting behind a desk or sitting on a train won't have an impact as much as it does today. This will allow us to be more productive during our time away from our desks.
Having been to one of Peter Cochrane's talks before, and having spoken to him, I know this guy is many years ahead of the rest of us. Back when he was head of BT research I attended one of his talks when he was talking about WAP and RFID. WAP was the thing of the time, but BT research was doing so much with it at the time, certianly more than anyone els. RFID was still 10 years away. I still haven't seen everything come to fruition that they were talking about back then, but the basics of it is coming out now and I can see everything else that they were working on staring to come through as well.
If he has thought about this, I would love to know exactly what he is working on. If I am sure about anything, it's that he has got something up his sleeve which although won't give us the 10 fold increase, it will certainly help us on the way.
Just to add fuel to a flame war, this could potentially work, fortunately we have all been there and now we are in the process of correcting this with another system. IPv4 and NAT. Anyone else see the similarities to what's been suggested here?
We all know that at the end fo the day we are going to run out of domain names.
Given that this is a geek web site, I figure this is slightly relevant.
Most meeting requests and other stuff (Which affects the most amount of people) will be sent using GMT. Although some things like street lights and other stuff may not come on at the right time, in the grand scheme of things, I don't think this will affect people.
Slashdot Mirror
This question has come up once or twice before.
The usual suspects for answers to this question are as follows:
NorthStar, which is quite feature rich. "NorthStar is a system to help track and allocate blocks in an IP Network"
IPplan which is another open source product.
And PHPip
If you want to go commercial VitalQIP Enterprise could suit your needs quite well.
Berny
Exactly, I have view points on what I would have done differently, but they don't necessarily apply to someone else.
/her in touch with them. At least give them some contacts who they can talk to further.
I can only relay what I have done and what it has meant for me, as well as what other people have done and put him
No I am not, but I can provide a good level of sound career advice. It's just that discussing that stuff I don't feel comfortable with in a public forum.
You can get it with both.
If you go out and do the courses you can get yourself a good job. If you go out and get a degree you can get a good job. Either one will help. Aus is an interesting market like that, you can get some good experience there (To a point) which you just can't get in other countries for different reasons; it's a cultural thing. But there are some jobs that you will go for (And this might not affect you for 10+ years) that people will want a degree for. I also know people who are still working in their 60s in the industry earning good money without them.
Take a look for my earlier comments, I know the market and am willing to talk to you on the phone.
Berny
This isn't off topic.
I am not going to tell this person what to do, I can only relate what I have done and what others have done. I have worked in the market which he / she is in right now. I have good friends who are managers in large organisations and I have literally hundreds of contacts in that area in the place that he / she is going to work. However, I am not willing to discuss the ins and outs of my career who I have worked for and what's happening in a public forum.
He / She can take what they want and make their own mind up. I personally don't believe it is for anyone here to tell someone what to do.
I am an aussie IT consultant currently working overseas.
I know the local market very well.
My email address is published.
Berny
Lets try that again shall we?
Youtube link fixed
Broadcasts such as NetBIOS and mdns do not cross subnet barriers
/24 x.x.x.255) presence, services, such as ssh, smb, etc, and lets you know that you might want to resolve that name to an IP address, and handily gives you that as well. mdns won't cross subnet boundaries, and pptp is a routed protocol, thus you never get that broadcast.
NetBIOS as a protocol in and of itself, isn't routable. NetBIOS traffic over IP is. Typical NetBIOS traffic that you would see ordinarily is broadcast and doesn't cross subnet boundaries. Resolution such as WINS and NetBIOS usage through WINS can be routed however. See example below.
How? It's a chicken or the egg scenario. How do you know that you need to resolve a name and service to an ip address unless the remote host broadcasts that the service is there and awaiting resolution? NetBIOS serves that purpose. Name resolution alone won't tell you what services are available. mdns broadcasts (ie, in a
You have 10 workstations on subnet A, WINS server on subnet B, and remote workstations on subnet C.
If the workstations on subnet A and workstations on subnet C have a WINS server on subnet B set as part of their configuration (By whatever means, static DHCP etc) then they will all get a browse list. They will all be able to see network shares. Provided that they aren't hidden (\\servername\sharename$).
SSH and other services are not covered, you won't see these. In actual fact this is one of the biggest downfalls of Active Directory in my opinion, aside from speed, Novell eDirectory and other directory products handle other services quite well. In the old days of NT and WINS, you could use DNS for resolution of any name, including accessing the server services themselves if you knew the name. In the example above, the list you see in Network Neighborhood however couldn't be enumerated without WINS.
In the old days you relied on the elections on the local subnet for each workgroup. The workgroup is actually a workgroup or a domain, but they all had elections. This is part of the NetBIOS broadcast on the local subnet. There is an article at the microsoft site that discusses browser elections. Workstations, servers, PDC, BDC, uptime and a number of other factors weighed in as to who became the master browser. There was usually a backup browser elected as well.
If you wanted to connect into that network across subnets in the old Microsoft realm, the way to do that was WINS. The way to enumerate stuff now is all from Active Directory, you can publish SQL servers, file shares, printers in AD. By default, you can't publish something that's not Microsofts.
In your instance, given that you are connecting Macs and things, and they don't have an Active Directory client (Well by default, you can use LDAP for all sorts of things) your best option is to use WINS if it supports it (I don't support Macs so I don't know). My theory would have been that you would have had to use DNS and just know what hostnames you are going for. You can still query the server service for available resources, and this is typically how a windows workstation operates.
WINS does the job, but it is still a chicken or egg problem. It will resolve the name, but you have to know ahead of time that you want to resolve the name for some purpose. Without broadcast, there's not way to know to put that machine into network neighborhood.
You don't have to broadcast to WINS, you can route traffic to WINS. At a large company I used to work for (about 70,000 people globally) we had one local WINS server in our country, and then a regional server in another country. Each DHCP scope had it's countries WINS server, and the regional server in the settings it gave out. There were 4 or 5 regional servers that would talk to each other.
That gave you a browse list, it told you the description of the box if set, the s
proprietary "VPN through Internet Explorer" solution
Most likely Citrix Access Gateway, I have seen it used a lot. Works reasonably well, few bugs though and no security certifications.
In either case, PPTP is a routing protocol,
Nope, PPTP is not a routing protocol. EIGRP and BGP are routing protocols.
PPTP is PPP over a GRE connection with a control session for GRE on TCP 1723.
and despite pulling the wool over your eyes, you do NOT have an IP on the system physical subnet.
Got a link on this one? There is no reason you can't give out an IP address from a PPTP server which is on the same subnet as the ethernet card of the PPTP server.
Broadcasts such as NetBIOS and mdns do not cross subnet barriers.
Broadcast? No, ARP? Yes.
ARP does work across a PPP link, so you might find that a customer is using ARP for name resolution. That really wouldn't be the brightest move as far as I was concerned, but it's a possibility.
The other alternative is that as people connect into their PPTP servers, they are given WINS server settings which will assist in them being able to see a browse list
Name resolution doesn't get you network neighborhood population.
Actually if it's WINS, it will do it nicely.
She was using a Firebox firewall to do the pptp vpn, and apparently you can't push the search parameter. yay
My guess here is that you are talking about sending multiple DNS server suffixes through DHCP.
The intention to do this really hasn't been picked up by too many people. It was first discussed in RFC 3397 but Microsoft hasn't implemented it yet, Apple might have for zeroconf and ISC has done so for DHCPd.
My personal opinion here is that you need to learn a bit more about how windows name resolution works (The old way, before AD) as you seem a bit confused.
For future reference, even though I would consider it dilapidated, WINS does do the job of allowing machines to discover other machines across subnets quite well.
The other suggestion I would have had would have been to just provide a link on the desktop to the NAS so that way DNS is involved only, and nothing more. Either that or just mount up the required shares and close the call
Berny
In the case of guys, how about reckless abandonment of a potential baby?
Whoops...
Preview, not submit.... That should have been:
we are not talking about 10 people sitting in a room here...
A convicted monopolist can't change it's spots overnight, no matter what anyone might think.
Think about it logically, a business that big needs time to change, we are not 10 people sitting in a room here...
Yep, fair call, nobody wants to pay more for it, suprise suprise suprise.
Do it the way that everyone else does it when they are financially constrained, buy HD when the life cycles end. So the cameras and other stuff that CBC would normally replace every 2 years (Provided they act like the other TV stations I know), go HD then. The video editing suite, that will eventually need to be upgraded (Usually happens every 4 - 5 years), do it then. Most people that do digital content creation pay for themselves (Make a profit) anyway, so just tell them they need to HD and then go back to playing golf.
Yes, there are financial constraints to going HD, but then there are financial constraints to running a business too. Over the next few years everyone else will be replacing kit, and they will be buying HD which means that sooner or later, everything that CBC gets given for broadcast is going to be HD.
25%, quite possibly now, that's fine, but in the future, everything is going to be HD and CBC aren't going to have an option as few people will be providing SD equipment to purchase. IF it's there, it will cost more money and won't be standard with the rest of the kit.
Really, this is a null and void arguement that they make that everyone else is going through.
Upgrading kit and increasing the quality of the standard broadcast costs a LOT of money, I know this all too well. Considering however that a major overhaul like this hasn't gone through the industry for 30 years in most countries, the amount of expenditure up front to move now is scaring people. It's the same with Vista and Office 2007 and everything else.
Touche
You spend 100% of your time coding?
You don't spend any time searching for solutions to problems, dealing with customers?
Not knowing your response, do you think by any chance that it would be possible to save time doing the above?
For a business to remain competitive it really does need to look at continual gains in productivity. A business also has a client base that grows, and a customer base to support. To support those users effectively you need IS. Try managing 1,000,000 users in an ISP environment without some form of automation. It's essentially impossible. It is impossible to do so while keeping a price that makes the product accessible. There unfortunately isn't a way around it.
Think about the associated human costs, are you going to pay double for your broadband if the ISP that you use employs double the amount of people to provide the same service?
The increasing amount of people in society provide additional business oppurtunities as well as additional jobs for people to do. Imagine trying to support a business of today on computers and business practices from 1990. Business as a concept itself hasn't changed much but Information Systems certainly have. These changes also bring about additional work in and of itself.
Overall, there are times when I question how much of a benefit of putting small businesses onto computers can be, but for larger ones or ones supporting large amounts of other people, it's close to impossible to avoid.
From what I saw from his talk 10 years ago to today, I can see a lot of things that haven't played out and a lot of things that have. WAP was one of them. The interfaces sucked, and that was brought up. Everyone is using wireless data (In all forms) to get access to their standard interfaces essentially. Wireless is getting faster, and it's being used to replace a cable. That's not visionary at all, anyone could have seen that happening, we also know that the cable is always going to be faster as it's a known quantity, air is not.
Talking about RFID and it's uses and what it's going to be used for probably won't be as quickly adopted as some people hope, but at the same time, a lot of what they were working on is coming through. The business benefits are there. This is what was talked about, and time thus far is proving him / them (BT Research) right.
I never read one of the future prediction documents, so I am not in a position to comment.
This is true to a degree, there is only so much that one person can do by themselves. Yes, there is tasks that can be completed by a single person, but it will get the point where we will change as people and they way that we work and we will be able to collaborate better. Virtual teams and the likes exist now, but we will still have a requirement for interaction. When mobile, although this is possible, it isn't as possible as face to face, this change will allow us to still give even more output while moving. AI will assist in this.
This is starting to filter through now, but will still take a little while more to get traction. Higher speed bandwidth for mobile users will allow this to happen more. Sitting behind a desk or sitting on a train won't have an impact as much as it does today. This will allow us to be more productive during our time away from our desks.
Having been to one of Peter Cochrane's talks before, and having spoken to him, I know this guy is many years ahead of the rest of us. Back when he was head of BT research I attended one of his talks when he was talking about WAP and RFID. WAP was the thing of the time, but BT research was doing so much with it at the time, certianly more than anyone els. RFID was still 10 years away. I still haven't seen everything come to fruition that they were talking about back then, but the basics of it is coming out now and I can see everything else that they were working on staring to come through as well.
If he has thought about this, I would love to know exactly what he is working on. If I am sure about anything, it's that he has got something up his sleeve which although won't give us the 10 fold increase, it will certainly help us on the way.
Just to add fuel to a flame war, this could potentially work, fortunately we have all been there and now we are in the process of correcting this with another system. IPv4 and NAT. Anyone else see the similarities to what's been suggested here?
We all know that at the end fo the day we are going to run out of domain names.
Turn on threaded replies and take a bow!
*Clap clap clap*
Given that this is a geek web site, I figure this is slightly relevant.
Most meeting requests and other stuff (Which affects the most amount of people) will be sent using GMT. Although some things like street lights and other stuff may not come on at the right time, in the grand scheme of things, I don't think this will affect people.
Flame retardant suit.... Check!
Athletic Cup..... Check!
Alright... Bring it on!
It's only the US, who cares?
ReiserFS --> ServesYouRightFS...
Imagine the jokes if Hans was found guilty.... Maybe not.