IS Engineers and the OSI layer model

#1
IS Ops (Engineers?) Should stay out of the bottom 4 layers of the OSI layer model. Stick to PC helpdesk support and leave Systems Engineering to Systems Engineers.

#no shut

(standing by)
 
#3
the_guru said:
IS Ops (Engineers?) Should stay out of the bottom 4 layers of the OSI layer model. Stick to PC helpdesk support and leave Systems Engineering to Systems Engineers.
Yeah, stay out of that physical layer. Don't worry about wiring up Cat-5e, leave it to Systems Engineers, makes them feel useful...


:) :) :)
 
#4
Layer 4: You really want to get involved in the miscreation of UDP packets by some half baked coder?
Layer 1: You really want to punchdown Cat6 terminations?

Apart from testing your theories and working on pilot systems you shoul d have nothing to do with them.

Systems Engineers engineer systems, technicians implement them and support them. Technicians may refer exceptions to engineers on exceptional occasion, but will at all times defer to them.
 
#5
the_guru said:
IS Ops (Engineers?) Should stay out of the bottom 4 layers of the OSI layer model. Stick to PC helpdesk support and leave Systems Engineering to Systems Engineers.
Presumably you've just been doing routers on your T1 and all of a sudden you're the network engineering guru? I know lots of coneheads who are crap with routers etc but that's par for the course. CIS is absolutely huge and no one is able to span the whole area to a high level. Remember the old saying "jack of all trades, master of none"? So, how much of your year long course was actual network engineering? A few weeks? If you look out into the Corps you'll see that people of different trades are already doing lots of network engineering; Cisco, Nortel and other stuff and they are from different trades (primarily IS and Tech). Is the Cisco love affair purely because it is a lucrative little number when you leave?

Unless you're blind, you'll have noticed that the Corps is looking at areas of responsibility. The stuff above layer 4 is where it starts to get really messy - the network engineering stuff is the easy part. That's why stuff like DII and all these other systems are outsourced to civvy companies, cos they take on the risk of getting in people who are experts in tiny portions of IT; security, operating systems, web apps, server tech, desktop support etc etc. Haven't you noticed yet, that Techs and IS Engrs are going to merge in the next couple of years? Surely it's time to dispense with the mindless 'my **** is bigger that yours' crap and look forward not back. Of course, there is the argument that both 'tech' and 'IT bloke' should be a subset of 'engineer' anyway (awfully similar to the ADP Spec model in many ways), but that's another argument.

Finally, why do you people keep pedding the same petty arguments every couple of months on here. I suggest getting in touch with RSigs TDT and asking what SOinC's policy is on further separating the Sys Engr Tech from the IS Engr. I suggest you'll get f***ed off at the high port and they'll confirm what I just said about the trades merging. It is happening...live with it. If you don't want to, then please please please tell us what you see as the fundamental core skills of the 'systems engineer' as opposed to the 'technician' as was.

PD

P.S. no debug (i.e. shut up, you arrse)
 
#7
Santa_Sunday said:
Ha Ha Ha,

Guru - Let him know when you did your T1

Ha Ha Ha ha................
Well, if it was a while ago, then he should be experienced enough to know better. I bet if you look throughout the Corps, more of the routing and switching is done by coneheads than by wieners. Why? Because working with IT gear is what brought them into their trade, unlike the reason why most techs went into theirs! And, on the whole, they're good at at.
 
#8
PoisonDwarf said:
Santa_Sunday said:
Ha Ha Ha,

Guru - Let him know when you did your T1

Ha Ha Ha ha................
Well, if it was a while ago, then he should be experienced enough to know better. I bet if you look throughout the Corps, more of the routing and switching is done by coneheads than by wieners. Why? Because working with IT gear is what brought them into their trade, unlike the reason why most techs went into theirs! And, on the whole, they're good at at.
You have a problem with techs, don't..??

Back of the queue - which contains the rest of the Corps, from what I can see.

(And no, I am not an R Sigs Tech)
 
#9
1986. I AM a Systems Engineer. I WAS a technician a long time ago. And I like baiting you Desktop Support guys. And if you read my original post, instead of bursting your geeky spots all over your keyboard, you would see that I was suggesting that IS Engineers stay in the application layers. I said nothing about cable termination for techs. You jumped to a massive conclusion. What are your feelings on VOIP? Because the potentially winning bidder for Falcon is offering a VOIP solution. I have done a factory VOIP course and at the end of the day it's just IP switching with QOS issues, as is VTC over IP. Do you think geeks should get involved with VOIP? Plus BTW putting in cabling into a HQ is a responsibility for all trades. So before you run off at the mouth and assume that I'm a nig, apply your safety catch, rest the weapon and look in. Now I expect a reasoned reply as soon as you've finished the next level of doom or whatever you got for Xmas.
 
#10
PoisonDwarf said:
If you look out into the Corps you'll see that people of different trades are already doing lots of network engineering; Cisco, Nortel and other stuff and they are from different trades (primarily IS and Tech). Is the Cisco love affair purely because it is a lucrative little number when you leave?
Why is the regular part of the corps so stuck in the networking side of ICS things? Why hasn't the rest of the subject been explored. I remember reading a while back that people were into Oracle and things like that. I get the impression that the 'IS Eng' trade has been moved into the 'tech' arena, abandoning the higher layers of the OSI model to civilian companies.

I also find it strange that much recent TA talk on the subject has been around at training people at what appears to be a higher layer of the OSI model, i.e. most are not interested in routers. Well saying that, if I was to organise people within my unit to do IT courses, I'd be after interested in variety some to do MCSA, others MCSE, MCDBA, ECDL and maybe one or two CISCO (or leave that to PSI IS Eng, PSI Tech or civvy contractor). This would in an ideal world give me the oppurtunity to sort nearly any problem from a Staff officer unable to get excel working to a Bde Comd wanting a bespoke app.
 
#11
Why has the title been changed to IS Engineer anyway? Systems Engineers Build and Engineer WAN's Geeks Operate Applications. (and change screensaver)
 
#12
QOS is 5% (loss) and 40 milliseconds and VOIP's there . Or is that only working static civi lines.

Speekda da fukin words.

IP telephone is there and now , Who gives a toss if you can (as a broadband VOIP spotter) phone the sex lines in Brazil for 2p a hour. It will take a kin long time for us to do it.

Just how do we ( the Army/Mil) work to our Sat up-link?

Fink about it?
 
#13
old_bloke said:
QOS is 5% (loss) and 40 milliseconds and VOIP's there . Or is that only working static civi lines.

Speekda da fukin words.

IP telephone is there and now , Who gives a toss if you can (as a broadband VOIP spotter) phone the sex lines in Brazil for 2p a hour. It will take a kin long time for us to do it.

Just how do we ( the Army/Mil) work to our Sat up-link?

Fink about it?
OB have you been drinking?

msr
 
#14
OB I think (?) You've hit the nail on the head. Mil Comms have bandwidth issue in that a lot of services down a relatively thin pipe. I was talking QOS in terms of prioritising packets, delivering within 40 mS is the thing.
 
#16
the_guru said:
New to the whole IT/Comms thing then?

the_guru said:
I have done a factory VOIP course and at the end of the day it's just IP switching with QOS issues, as is VTC over IP.
Unless of course you want to understand what it is you are switching and you are going to cover it from codec A to TDM and back to codec B. However I would imagine that you are more likely to be sustaining whatever half-baked homogeneous system the MOD bought by mistake, not really systems engineering.
 
#17
Well, IP over ATM can do it but we don't let Cormorant do its thang (that we paid lots for). Pure IP can also do it but we have to get our act together before FALCON arrives if it's to be allowed to.

Don
 
#18
Good Idea WTF are you talking about? True VOIP does not entail TDM (POTS) at all. Soft phone or IP phones can be payload switched, the call set up, tear down and signalling dealt with by H.323 or SIP. The only time that TDM (or something newer) is relevant when connecting a VOIP call into the PSTN, via a Gateway. QOS is being applied by using the TOS Byte in the IP Header.
 
#19
I LOVE this thead..........

What about 6 Channels, 200 Registers, TTVFs, Auto 1/40s, 10 pairs, COMCENCMD, C 50s, CST 1 & 4s, T 100s, et al.....

Your new fangled ways have NO future. It's witchcraft and you should ALL burn..............
 
#20
LOLOLOL SANTA DE GURU
PUTTING REVS DOWN CH1 OF TTVF
INT ZBZ
KKKKK
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads