|
Home > Archive > alt.certification.cisco > January 2003 > which is more in demand - security or ip telephony?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
which is more in demand - security or ip telephony?
|
|
| bernie v 2003-01-23, 8:24 pm |
| Hi all,
So I've completed my CCNP - and like its been stated before - that doesn't
really mean squat in today's job market. I have 5 years experience with an
ISP - 2 years as customer support - and 3 years in their network operations
group. Still having a problem finding a job. I'm considering specializing in
either security or ip telephony - obviously this wont help me short term as
the amount of experience I can gain in either is minimal in a short period
of time - but I'm thinking maybe 6 months down the road - which do you think
will be more in demand in the job market?
Thanks,
Bernie V
| |
| Bernie 2003-01-23, 9:24 pm |
| On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 02:01:01 GMT, "bernie v"
<bernie@nospam_nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>Hi all,
>So I've completed my CCNP - and like its been stated before - that doesn't
>really mean squat in today's job market. I have 5 years experience with an
>ISP - 2 years as customer support - and 3 years in their network operations
>group. Still having a problem finding a job. I'm considering specializing in
>either security or ip telephony - obviously this wont help me short term as
>the amount of experience I can gain in either is minimal in a short period
>of time - but I'm thinking maybe 6 months down the road - which do you think
>will be more in demand in the job market?
That depends on whether you are looking long term or short term. I
don't think there is any question that security is the place to be
today. But like everything that has come before it, it *will* cool
off and something else will take its place in terms of being the "hot"
set of skills to have.
So I guess if you want to get into the security game at this point,
you are taking the chance of being a "Johnny come lately." I can't
predict when there will be a glut of people claiming to all be
security experts. Maybe it won't happen for two years, maybe next
week. Who knows.
IP Telephony I believe will be become increasingly important over the
next five years. I think the long term future is better for those
that start specializing in IP Telephony today. That is sort of what I
am doing (except that my job also demands it).
So that is my prediction, FWIW.
--Bernie
| |
|
|
"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
news:26B8F6D9492BD309.8A85B6C9E71F4772.733BA681BB3967F9@lp.airnews.net...
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 02:01:01 GMT, "bernie v"
> <bernie@nospam_nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi all,
> >So I've completed my CCNP - and like its been stated before - that
doesn't
> >really mean squat in today's job market. I have 5 years experience with
an
> >ISP - 2 years as customer support - and 3 years in their network
operations
> >group. Still having a problem finding a job. I'm considering specializing
in
> >either security or ip telephony - obviously this wont help me short term
as
> >the amount of experience I can gain in either is minimal in a short
period
> >of time - but I'm thinking maybe 6 months down the road - which do you
think
> >will be more in demand in the job market?
>
> That depends on whether you are looking long term or short term. I
> don't think there is any question that security is the place to be
> today. But like everything that has come before it, it *will* cool
> off and something else will take its place in terms of being the "hot"
> set of skills to have.
>
> So I guess if you want to get into the security game at this point,
> you are taking the chance of being a "Johnny come lately." I can't
> predict when there will be a glut of people claiming to all be
> security experts. Maybe it won't happen for two years, maybe next
> week. Who knows.
>
> IP Telephony I believe will be become increasingly important over the
> next five years. I think the long term future is better for those
> that start specializing in IP Telephony today. That is sort of what I
> am doing (except that my job also demands it).
>
> So that is my prediction, FWIW.
Both are fairly solid choices (or, at least, more solid than plain-vanilla
routing and switching).
But I would add the following to the discussion. If you really want to get
into security, and not just pseudo-security, but REAL security, you have to
become a wizard in OS's, especially Linux/UNIX. The fact is, I hate to say
it, but network security is really only a minor part of security. Go to any
reputable security website or convention or whatever, and note that for
every one paper or discussion about network security, there are probably 10
or 20 papers/discussions about OS's and apps. The fact is there really
isn't a lot of security work associated with networks, when you compare it
to the amount of security work required for layer-7 stuff.
IP telephony, too, is a bit too narrow. What is more important is general
VoX technologies, and particularly the understanding of how voice can be
integrated into applications through such avenues as CTI and TAPI. If all
VoIP offered was toll savings, I doubt that it would be anything more than
a niche technology. VoIP's real value-add is its 'feature velocity' and
particularly its potential to tie voice communications to potentially
anything you want.
Two other areas you didn't mention but I see as ports-in-a-storm are
storage-networking and SNA migration. Neither of these hillsides has been
overcome by the deluge - both of them are highly resistant to the skills
commoditization that is beseiging plain-vanilla routing and switching.
Let's face it, if all you know is IP routing, you don't know much, not in
this economy. But if you really understand things like Dlsw+ (not just for
the CCIE lab, but really really understand Dlsw+), SNASw, TN3270, CIP cards,
and things like that, you'll probably do allright. Same thing is true if
you really understand FibreChannel, LUN's, backup/restore, volume-managers,
and the like.
>
> --Bernie
| |
| Bernie 2003-01-24, 9:24 am |
| On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 03:09:32 GMT, "nrf" <noglikirf@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
>news:26B8F6D9492BD309.8A85B6C9E71F4772.733BA681BB3967F9@lp.airnews.net...
>> On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 02:01:01 GMT, "bernie v"
>> <bernie@nospam_nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi all,
>> >So I've completed my CCNP - and like its been stated before - that
> doesn't
>> >really mean squat in today's job market. I have 5 years experience with
> an
>> >ISP - 2 years as customer support - and 3 years in their network
> operations
>> >group. Still having a problem finding a job. I'm considering specializing
> in
>> >either security or ip telephony - obviously this wont help me short term
> as
>> >the amount of experience I can gain in either is minimal in a short
> period
>> >of time - but I'm thinking maybe 6 months down the road - which do you
> think
>> >will be more in demand in the job market?
>>
>> That depends on whether you are looking long term or short term. I
>> don't think there is any question that security is the place to be
>> today. But like everything that has come before it, it *will* cool
>> off and something else will take its place in terms of being the "hot"
>> set of skills to have.
>>
>> So I guess if you want to get into the security game at this point,
>> you are taking the chance of being a "Johnny come lately." I can't
>> predict when there will be a glut of people claiming to all be
>> security experts. Maybe it won't happen for two years, maybe next
>> week. Who knows.
>>
>> IP Telephony I believe will be become increasingly important over the
>> next five years. I think the long term future is better for those
>> that start specializing in IP Telephony today. That is sort of what I
>> am doing (except that my job also demands it).
>>
>> So that is my prediction, FWIW.
>
>Both are fairly solid choices (or, at least, more solid than plain-vanilla
>routing and switching).
>
>But I would add the following to the discussion. If you really want to get
>into security, and not just pseudo-security, but REAL security, you have to
>become a wizard in OS's, especially Linux/UNIX. The fact is, I hate to say
>it, but network security is really only a minor part of security. Go to any
>reputable security website or convention or whatever, and note that for
>every one paper or discussion about network security, there are probably 10
>or 20 papers/discussions about OS's and apps. The fact is there really
>isn't a lot of security work associated with networks, when you compare it
>to the amount of security work required for layer-7 stuff.
>
>IP telephony, too, is a bit too narrow.
I wouldn't say that. It you are just talking about the network
transport/QoS piece, yes it is too narrow. But if you are talking
about all the voice products and features, then get ready to swim in
an ocean. There are a million voice features for the phones
themselves from hotelling to IVR scripts. Then there are the
voicemail systems with their million features. And then if that isn't
tricked up enough for you, you can learn about VoIP call center
products and apps. And then just for kickers you can mix in hybrid
phone systems where you have to manage a mix of digital, analog, and
native VoIP sets and PBXs.
So I guess when I suggest to get into IP Telephony, I am not
suggesting that a person learn QoS and 802.3af and just stop there.
Learn the whole enchilada...and be prepared to spend tons of time!
>What is more important is general
>VoX technologies, and particularly the understanding of how voice can be
>integrated into applications through such avenues as CTI and TAPI. If all
>VoIP offered was toll savings, I doubt that it would be anything more than
>a niche technology. VoIP's real value-add is its 'feature velocity' and
>particularly its potential to tie voice communications to potentially
>anything you want.
>
>Two other areas you didn't mention but I see as ports-in-a-storm are
>storage-networking and SNA migration.
Ok, not trying to gloat or make you eat crow, but I have to mention
this. About six months ago I said this very thing about SANs (in the
form of a prediction related to this exact same topic), and you had
the exact opposite opinion (that there was little promise in the
field). What gives?
--Bernie
| |
| Bernie 2003-01-24, 10:24 am |
| On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:42:04 -0600, Bernie <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote:
>>Two other areas you didn't mention but I see as ports-in-a-storm are
>>storage-networking and SNA migration.
>
>Ok, not trying to gloat or make you eat crow, but I have to mention
>this. About six months ago I said this very thing about SANs (in the
>form of a prediction related to this exact same topic), and you had
>the exact opposite opinion (that there was little promise in the
>field). What gives?
For the reference of the conversation I am talking about, here is the
link and a short quote (keeping it in context I said "SANs were
looming on the horizon" and this was part of your reply):
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=...618%40sccrnsc01
"SAN's being hot? I have to disagree - at least not with conventional
FibreChannel SAN's and not in the near-future (although things like
iSCSI remain a huge question mark, and might be tomorrow's hot
opportunity... or might not)."
--Bernie
| |
|
|
"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
news:CED98203CB1A75E4.94300B3C1DE85065.1FBC32C786A9F49D@lp.airnews.net...
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:42:04 -0600, Bernie <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>Two other areas you didn't mention but I see as ports-in-a-storm are
> >>storage-networking and SNA migration.
> >
> >Ok, not trying to gloat or make you eat crow, but I have to mention
> >this. About six months ago I said this very thing about SANs (in the
> >form of a prediction related to this exact same topic), and you had
> >the exact opposite opinion (that there was little promise in the
> >field). What gives?
>
>
> For the reference of the conversation I am talking about, here is the
> link and a short quote (keeping it in context I said "SANs were
> looming on the horizon" and this was part of your reply):
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=...elm=aIgm8.89569
%24q2.8618%40sccrnsc01
>
> "SAN's being hot? I have to disagree - at least not with conventional
> FibreChannel SAN's and not in the near-future (although things like
> iSCSI remain a huge question mark, and might be tomorrow's hot
> opportunity... or might not)."
Actually, I believe the context of the old conversation was whether SAN's
themselves were hot, instead of whether SAN-type skills were hot, which are
2 different things. SAN's themselves, I don't think are hot. But SAN
skills are hot (or at least lukewarm). It's the same thing with, say, SNA.
SNA is not hot. But SNA skills are still lukewarm.
The key to why this is so is simple - barriers to entry. SAN is going down
(slowly), just like SNA is going down (again, slowly). On the other hand,
it is quite hard to actually get opportunities to learn SAN or SNA, and this
fact more than compensates for the fact that the demand is not great. Lots
of people know or can easily learn plain-vanilla routing and switching. But
how many people can actually get their hands on FibreChannel? Or a
mainframe/FEP?
Once again, it all boils down to supply and demand. Routing and switching
demand might be increasing (although with all the service-provider
bankruptcies, I'm not so sure), but that's swamped by the supply of all the
new people who learn routing and switching (for example, 150 new R/S CCIE's
every month) - and this is precisely why I think the outlook for
routing/switching skills to be poor. SAN stuff, on the other hand, might
not have increasing demand, but also has a constrained supply of people
because, quite frankly, it's hard to get the chance to learn it.
>
> --Bernie
| |
|
|
>
> So I guess when I suggest to get into IP Telephony, I am not
> suggesting that a person learn QoS and 802.3af and just stop there.
> Learn the whole enchilada...and be prepared to spend tons of time!
I am hardly suggesting that people only stop at QoS and inline power. What
I'm actually saying is that people should not stop at learning, say, just IP
PBX's/soft-switches only, but should also pay attention to the plethora of
H323/MGCP media gateways, gatekeepers, SIP, and things of that nature. And
they have to further combine that with a strong knowledge of legacy
TDM-based PSTN systems which probably still be around when we are dead.
And the most important feature that I mention below - CTI/TAPI integration
(which is concentric with your discussion of IVR and unified messaging).
>
> >What is more important is general
> >VoX technologies, and particularly the understanding of how voice can be
> >integrated into applications through such avenues as CTI and TAPI. If
all
> >VoIP offered was toll savings, I doubt that it would be anything more
than
> >a niche technology. VoIP's real value-add is its 'feature velocity' and
> >particularly its potential to tie voice communications to potentially
> >anything you want.
> >
> >Two other areas you didn't mention but I see as ports-in-a-storm are
> >storage-networking and SNA migration.
>
> Ok, not trying to gloat or make you eat crow, but I have to mention
> this. About six months ago I said this very thing about SANs (in the
> form of a prediction related to this exact same topic), and you had
> the exact opposite opinion (that there was little promise in the
> field). What gives?
See my other posting.
>
> --Bernie
| |
| Bernie 2003-01-24, 6:24 pm |
| On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 17:11:42 GMT, "nrf" <noglikirf@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
>news:CED98203CB1A75E4.94300B3C1DE85065.1FBC32C786A9F49D@lp.airnews.net...
>> On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:42:04 -0600, Bernie <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >>Two other areas you didn't mention but I see as ports-in-a-storm are
>> >>storage-networking and SNA migration.
>> >
>> >Ok, not trying to gloat or make you eat crow, but I have to mention
>> >this. About six months ago I said this very thing about SANs (in the
>> >form of a prediction related to this exact same topic), and you had
>> >the exact opposite opinion (that there was little promise in the
>> >field). What gives?
>>
>>
>> For the reference of the conversation I am talking about, here is the
>> link and a short quote (keeping it in context I said "SANs were
>> looming on the horizon" and this was part of your reply):
>>
>>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=...elm=aIgm8.89569
>%24q2.8618%40sccrnsc01
>>
>> "SAN's being hot? I have to disagree - at least not with conventional
>> FibreChannel SAN's and not in the near-future (although things like
>> iSCSI remain a huge question mark, and might be tomorrow's hot
>> opportunity... or might not)."
>
>Actually, I believe the context of the old conversation was whether SAN's
>themselves were hot, instead of whether SAN-type skills were hot,
No, I was in the process of giving career advice, not advice on
equipment purchasing decisions. I thought that was pretty clear at
the time.
>which are
>2 different things. SAN's themselves, I don't think are hot. But SAN
>skills are hot (or at least lukewarm).
Then if you would look at the original context, you would notice that
I was specifically talking about skills as we were commenting about
which areas had (or will have) demand. We weren't (at least I wasn't)
talking about product sales. In fact I was clearly talking about
which areas of technology people should invest into in order to be in
demand at the right time.
--Bernie
| |
| Bernie 2003-01-24, 7:24 pm |
| Reply-To: abuse@[127.0.0.1], see signature@[127.0.0.1]
Abuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library1-aux.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Fri Jan 24 18:27:45 2003
NNTP-Posting-Host: !XU"q1k-Vm"uP*j2_di\E8pou (Encoded at Airnews!)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
Xref: nntp3.aus1.giganews.com alt.certification.cisco:80762
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 17:16:11 GMT, "nrf" <noglikirf@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> So I guess when I suggest to get into IP Telephony, I am not
>> suggesting that a person learn QoS and 802.3af and just stop there.
>> Learn the whole enchilada...and be prepared to spend tons of time!
>
>I am hardly suggesting that people only stop at QoS and inline power. What
>I'm actually saying is that people should not stop at learning, say, just IP
>PBX's/soft-switches only, but should also pay attention to the plethora of
>H323/MGCP media gateways, gatekeepers, SIP, and things of that nature. And
>they have to further combine that with a strong knowledge of legacy
>TDM-based PSTN systems which probably still be around when we are dead.
>And the most important feature that I mention below - CTI/TAPI integration
>(which is concentric with your discussion of IVR and unified messaging).
Right. But I am sure that you can see why I would find it strange
that you would call this "narrow" as all of this does fit under the
umbrella of IP Telephony.
--Bernie
| |
| Bernie 2003-01-24, 7:24 pm |
| On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 19:00:51 -0600, Bernie <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 17:16:11 GMT, "nrf" <noglikirf@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> So I guess when I suggest to get into IP Telephony, I am not
>>> suggesting that a person learn QoS and 802.3af and just stop there.
>>> Learn the whole enchilada...and be prepared to spend tons of time!
>>
>>I am hardly suggesting that people only stop at QoS and inline power. What
>>I'm actually saying is that people should not stop at learning, say, just IP
>>PBX's/soft-switches only, but should also pay attention to the plethora of
>>H323/MGCP media gateways, gatekeepers, SIP, and things of that nature. And
>>they have to further combine that with a strong knowledge of legacy
>>TDM-based PSTN systems which probably still be around when we are dead.
>>And the most important feature that I mention below - CTI/TAPI integration
>>(which is concentric with your discussion of IVR and unified messaging).
>
>Right. But I am sure that you can see why I would find it strange
>that you would call this "narrow" as all of this does fit under the
>umbrella of IP Telephony.
On second thought, I think I had your point backwards...you may have
been trying to say that a person that has a side specialty in voice
needs to go beyond just learning IP-based services. I misunderstood
because I consider just the IP-based services a vast realm (and it
is).
--Bernie
| |
|
|
"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
news:54A70E945227A567.9B5C3F72304B5683.7FB117124FF3EAD9@lp.airnews.net...
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 17:11:42 GMT, "nrf" <noglikirf@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
> >news:CED98203CB1A75E4.94300B3C1DE85065.1FBC32C786A9F49D@lp.airnews.net...
> >> On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:42:04 -0600, Bernie <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >>Two other areas you didn't mention but I see as ports-in-a-storm are
> >> >>storage-networking and SNA migration.
> >> >
> >> >Ok, not trying to gloat or make you eat crow, but I have to mention
> >> >this. About six months ago I said this very thing about SANs (in the
> >> >form of a prediction related to this exact same topic), and you had
> >> >the exact opposite opinion (that there was little promise in the
> >> >field). What gives?
> >>
> >>
> >> For the reference of the conversation I am talking about, here is the
> >> link and a short quote (keeping it in context I said "SANs were
> >> looming on the horizon" and this was part of your reply):
> >>
> >>
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=...selm=aIgm8.8956
9
> >%24q2. 8618%40sccrnsc01
> >>
> >> "SAN's being hot? I have to disagree - at least not with conventional
> >> FibreChannel SAN's and not in the near-future (although things like
> >> iSCSI remain a huge question mark, and might be tomorrow's hot
> >> opportunity... or might not)."
> >
> >Actually, I believe the context of the old conversation was whether SAN's
> >themselves were hot, instead of whether SAN-type skills were hot,
>
> No, I was in the process of giving career advice, not advice on
> equipment purchasing decisions. I thought that was pretty clear at
> the time.
>
> >which are
> >2 different things. SAN's themselves, I don't think are hot. But SAN
> >skills are hot (or at least lukewarm).
>
> Then if you would look at the original context, you would notice that
> I was specifically talking about skills as we were commenting about
> which areas had (or will have) demand. We weren't (at least I wasn't)
> talking about product sales. In fact I was clearly talking about
> which areas of technology people should invest into in order to be in
> demand at the right time.
Well, if that's the case, then we were speaking at cross-purposes - I was
speaking about specifically the SAN market (not about SAN skills).
Having said that, presuming that I was actually speaking about SAN skills in
the past, consider the following. I am not exactly giving a totally ringing
endorsement to SAN skills either. Rather, in the recent past, I have been
presented with more information that indicates that standard
routing/switching is in even more dire straits than I had previously
thought. I point to the value of SAN skills not because I think they're the
greatest thing since sliced bread, but more due to relativity - in the land
of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
>
>
> --Bernie
| |
|
|
"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
news:9C6897FAF0DC1B87.17A2DB49373AE201.00C8589C1688E8A1@lp.airnews.net...
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 19:00:51 -0600, Bernie <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 17:16:11 GMT, "nrf" <noglikirf@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> So I guess when I suggest to get into IP Telephony, I am not
> >>> suggesting that a person learn QoS and 802.3af and just stop there.
> >>> Learn the whole enchilada...and be prepared to spend tons of time!
> >>
> >>I am hardly suggesting that people only stop at QoS and inline power.
What[
color=darkred]
> >>I'm actually saying is that people should not stop at learning, say,[/color]
just IP[co
lor=darkred]
> >>PBX's/soft-switches only, but should also pay attention to the plethora[/color]
of[co
lor=darkred]
> >>H323/MGCP media gateways, gatekeepers, SIP, and things of that nature.[/color]
And[c
olor=darkred]
> >>they have to further combine that with a strong knowledge of legacy
> >>TDM-based PSTN systems which probably still be around when we are dead.
> >>And the most important feature that I mention below - CTI/TAPI[/color]
integration
> >>(which is concentric with your discussion of IVR and unified messaging).
> >
> >Right. But I am sure that you can see why I would find it strange
> >that you would call this "narrow" as all of this does fit under the
> >umbrella of IP Telephony.
>
> On second thought, I think I had your point backwards...you may have
> been trying to say that a person that has a side specialty in voice
> needs to go beyond just learning IP-based services. I misunderstood
> because I consider just the IP-based services a vast realm (and it
> is).
IP-based services are indeed a vast realm, but a realm that is also soon to
be commmoditized. To maintain employability, you must obtain skills that
are difficult to master - and network guys who also deeply understand both
voice and apps have put themselves in a stronger position than most.
>
> --Bernie
| |
| Bernie 2003-01-24, 11:23 pm |
| On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 03:27:46 GMT, "nrf" <noglikirf@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
>news:54A70E945227A567.9B5C3F72304B5683.7FB117124FF3EAD9@lp.airnews.net...
>> On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 17:11:42 GMT, "nrf" <noglikirf@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
>> >news:CED98203CB1A75E4.94300B3C1DE85065.1FBC32C786A9F49D@lp.airnews.net...
>> >> On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 09:42:04 -0600, Bernie <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >>Two other areas you didn't mention but I see as ports-in-a-storm are
>> >> >>storage-networking and SNA migration.
>> >> >
>> >> >Ok, not trying to gloat or make you eat crow, but I have to mention
>> >> >this. About six months ago I said this very thing about SANs (in the
>> >> >form of a prediction related to this exact same topic), and you had
>> >> >the exact opposite opinion (that there was little promise in the
>> >> >field). What gives?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> For the reference of the conversation I am talking about, here is the
>> >> link and a short quote (keeping it in context I said "SANs were
>> >> looming on the horizon" and this was part of your reply):
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=...selm=aIgm8.8956
>9
>> >%24q2.8618%40sccrnsc01
>> >>
>> >> "SAN's being hot? I have to disagree - at least not with conventional
>> >> FibreChannel SAN's and not in the near-future (although things like
>> >> iSCSI remain a huge question mark, and might be tomorrow's hot
>> >> opportunity... or might not)."
>> >
>> >Actually, I believe the context of the old conversation was whether SAN's
>> >themselves were hot, instead of whether SAN-type skills were hot,
>>
>> No, I was in the process of giving career advice, not advice on
>> equipment purchasing decisions. I thought that was pretty clear at
>> the time.
>>
>> >which are
>> >2 different things. SAN's themselves, I don't think are hot. But SAN
>> >skills are hot (or at least lukewarm).
>>
>> Then if you would look at the original context, you would notice that
>> I was specifically talking about skills as we were commenting about
>> which areas had (or will have) demand. We weren't (at least I wasn't)
>> talking about product sales. In fact I was clearly talking about
>> which areas of technology people should invest into in order to be in
>> demand at the right time.
>
>Well, if that's the case, then we were speaking at cross-purposes - I was
>speaking about specifically the SAN market (not about SAN skills).
>
>Having said that, presuming that I was actually speaking about SAN skills in
>the past, consider the following. I am not exactly giving a totally ringing
>endorsement to SAN skills either. Rather, in the recent past, I have been
>presented with more information that indicates that standard
>routing/switching is in even more dire straits than I had previously
>thought. I point to the value of SAN skills not because I think they're the
>greatest thing since sliced bread, but more due to relativity - in the land
>of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Nor was I necessarily saying that six months from now we would see all
the training centers flooding the market with SAN certified people.
Without rehashing a discussion about supply vs. demand, I was
suggesting at the time that a person could make good money as a SAN
expert, moreso than many other areas of IT that have been flooded.
--Bernie
| |
| Bernie 2003-01-24, 11:23 pm |
| On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 03:29:19 GMT, "nrf" <noglikirf@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
>news:9C6897FAF0DC1B87.17A2DB49373AE201.00C8589C1688E8A1@lp.airnews.net...
>> On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 19:00:51 -0600, Bernie <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 17:16:11 GMT, "nrf" <noglikirf@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> So I guess when I suggest to get into IP Telephony, I am not
>> >>> suggesting that a person learn QoS and 802.3af and just stop there.
>> >>> Learn the whole enchilada...and be prepared to spend tons of time!
>> >>
>> >>I am hardly suggesting that people only stop at QoS and inline power.
> What
>> >>I'm actually saying is that people should not stop at learning, say,
>just IP
>> >>PBX's/soft-switches only, but should also pay attention to the plethora
> of
>> >>H323/MGCP media gateways, gatekeepers, SIP, and things of that nature.
> And
>> >>they have to further combine that with a strong knowledge of legacy
>> >>TDM-based PSTN systems which probably still be around when we are dead.
>> >>And the most important feature that I mention below - CTI/TAPI
> integration[color
=darkred]
>> >>(which is concentric with your discussion of IVR and unified messaging).
>> >
>> >Right. But I am sure that you can see why I would find it strange
>> >that you would call this "narrow" as all of this does fit under the
>> >umbrella of IP Telephony.
>>
>> On second thought, I think I had your point backwards...you may have
>> been trying to say that a person that has a side specialty in voice
>> needs to go beyond just learning IP-based services. I misunderstood
>> because I consider just the IP-based services a vast realm (and it
>> is).
>
>IP-based services are indeed a vast realm, but a realm that is also soon to
>be commmoditized. To maintain employability, you must obtain skills that
>are difficult to master - and network guys who also deeply understand both
>voice and apps have put themselves in a stronger position than most.[/color]
At the same time, I think you make a distinction that is fairly
obvious. I don't know anyone that would try to specialize in voice
and yet specifically avoid any voice technology that doesn't use IP.
For example if you were to try to learn your company's brand new VoIP
call server system, but you had a legacy non-IP voice mail system
still installed you most likely wouldn't say, "Nope, not gonna learn
how that voice mail system works because it is not 'IP.'" Also,
consider that even the most modern VoIP installations are probably
going to have legacy connections to the PSTN even if only for backup
calling purposes. You would have to deliberately ignore half of your
PBX just to avoid learning the non-IP part.
--Bernie
| |
|
| I have to agree. Have been in telecom for 10 years I am biased towards IP
Telephony. Especially as more of the large call centers start moving more of
their agent off site.
"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
news:26B8F6D9492BD309.8A85B6C9E71F4772.733BA681BB3967F9@lp.airnews.net...
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 02:01:01 GMT, "bernie v"
> <bernie@nospam_nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi all,
> >So I've completed my CCNP - and like its been stated before - that
doesn't
> >really mean squat in today's job market. I have 5 years experience with
an
> >ISP - 2 years as customer support - and 3 years in their network
operations
> >group. Still having a problem finding a job. I'm considering specializing
in
> >either security or ip telephony - obviously this wont help me short term
as
> >the amount of experience I can gain in either is minimal in a short
period
> >of time - but I'm thinking maybe 6 months down the road - which do you
think
> >will be more in demand in the job market?
>
> That depends on whether you are looking long term or short term. I
> don't think there is any question that security is the place to be
> today. But like everything that has come before it, it *will* cool
> off and something else will take its place in terms of being the "hot"
> set of skills to have.
>
> So I guess if you want to get into the security game at this point,
> you are taking the chance of being a "Johnny come lately." I can't
> predict when there will be a glut of people claiming to all be
> security experts. Maybe it won't happen for two years, maybe next
> week. Who knows.
>
> IP Telephony I believe will be become increasingly important over the
> next five years. I think the long term future is better for those
> that start specializing in IP Telephony today. That is sort of what I
> am doing (except that my job also demands it).
>
> So that is my prediction, FWIW.
>
> --Bernie
| |
|
|
"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
news:0FBE45F36344B3E1.99BEE42C03297AD3.B00BE0B87C59BF30@lp.airnews.net...
> On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 03:29:19 GMT, "nrf" <noglikirf@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
> >news:9C6897FAF0DC1B87.17A2DB49373AE201.00C8589C1688E8A1@lp.airnews.net...
> >> On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 19:00:51 -0600, Bernie <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 17:16:11 GMT, "nrf" <noglikirf@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> So I guess when I suggest to get into IP Telephony, I am not
> >> >>> suggesting that a person learn QoS and 802.3af and just stop there.
> >> >>> Learn the whole enchilada...and be prepared to spend tons of time!
> >> >>
> >> >>I am hardly suggesting that people only stop at QoS and inline power.
> >What
> >> >>I'm actually saying is that people should not stop at learning, say,
> >just IP
> >> >>PBX's/soft-switches only, but should also pay attention to the
plethora
> >of
> >> >>H323/MGCP media gateways, gatekeepers, SIP, and things of that
nature.
> >And
> >> >>they have to further combine that with a strong knowledge of legacy
> >> >>TDM-based PSTN systems which probably still be around when we are
dead. [colo
r=darkred]
> >> >>And the most important feature that I mention below - CTI/TAPI
> >integration
> >> >>(which is concentric with your discussion of IVR and unified[/color]
messaging). [colo
r=darkred]
> >> >
> >> >Right. But I am sure that you can see why I would find it strange
> >> >that you would call this "narrow" as all of this does fit under the
> >> >umbrella of IP Telephony.
> >>
> >> On second thought, I think I had your point backwards...you may have
> >> been trying to say that a person that has a side specialty in voice
> >> needs to go beyond just learning IP-based services. I misunderstood
> >> because I consider just the IP-based services a vast realm (and it
> >> is).
> >
> >IP-based services are indeed a vast realm, but a realm that is also soon[/color]
to
> >be commmoditized. To maintain employability, you must obtain skills that
> >are difficult to master - and network guys who also deeply understand
both
> >voice and apps have put themselves in a stronger position than most.
>
> At the same time, I think you make a distinction that is fairly
> obvious. I don't know anyone that would try to specialize in voice
> and yet specifically avoid any voice technology that doesn't use IP.
> For example if you were to try to learn your company's brand new VoIP
> call server system, but you had a legacy non-IP voice mail system
> still installed you most likely wouldn't say, "Nope, not gonna learn
> how that voice mail system works because it is not 'IP.'" Also,
> consider that even the most modern VoIP installations are probably
> going to have legacy connections to the PSTN even if only for backup
> calling purposes. You would have to deliberately ignore half of your
> PBX just to avoid learning the non-IP part.
>
>
> --Bernie
This is what I face everyday.
A small 100 user callcenter with blended ( IB/OB/MM ) calls and
applications. I have VoIP, TDM, POTS, MSTapi, JTapi and vendor specific
software for admin at the telecom level and at the supervisor/manager
levels.
BTW... I took the CCIE IP Telephony Beta on the 21st. I am really glad that
some decent voice guys wrote it and not just the routing guys.
| |
| live here 2003-01-27, 10:23 pm |
| On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 03:29:19 GMT, "nrf" <noglikirf@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>IP-based services are indeed a vast realm, but a realm that is also soon to
>be commmoditized. To maintain employability, you must obtain skills that
>are difficult to master - and network guys who also deeply understand both
>voice and apps have put themselves in a stronger position than most.
>
>>
>> --Bernie
>
Indeed bring the ballance back to real skills and formal trained
technicians and engineers, not a cert paper chaser.
Telco's and telecommmunications companys never used certs to get there
trained workforce, they invested in training staff, vocational
training apprenterships ect.
So the secret is now out pure IT (cert paper chasers) ppls have
bluffed us all, your all commom as mud.
Get back to real trained workers not the deregulated IT employment
market, your only as good as whats in vendor vouge.... not what
foundation skills you got, as it like today.
Regards
Frank
apprentership, technician, diploma engineering, and lots of real
experance, with some vendor training as well, but not certs for paper
chasing sake.
|
|
|
|
|