From: Wright, Jeremy (JA_WRIGHT@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Jul 16 2002 - 13:50:59 GMT-3
i have always been good about being nice in explaining unusual requests or
logic behind some schemes. this manager made a point to send an email to
myself and my group (including my supervisor) about how easy it would be to
apply 20 /16's compared to 1 /24 and NAT and make a point that I was way
wrong and too complicated. He has no network knowledge at all. It was
completely unnecessary and his mannerism about the situation was way out of
line. I have been given a green light from management to respond explaining
why his design would be wrong and the cost of what he recommended. i
shouldnt say i am going to rub it in but i will make a point (in good
mannerism) that his suggestion is wrong. thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Brown [mailto:Jim.Brown@caselogic.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 11:35 AM
To: 'Wright, Jeremy'; 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
Subject: RE: price of ip's
How about enlighten, not rub. :-)
-----Original Message-----
From: Wright, Jeremy [mailto:JA_WRIGHT@admworld.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 9:34 AM
To: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
Subject: OT: price of ip's
I'm arguing with one of my remote sites managers because he is claiming that
he needs 20 /16 addresses. Thats right...20 /16's. He has no concept of
subnetting or routing. I dont have a clue how much 20 /16's would cost in
the real world. I'm thinking it would be impossible to obtain 20 /16's. I
just wanted to see if someone would have a guesstimate on the price of that
many ranges (millions?). dont worry...he's not getting more than 254
addresses and NAT. i just want to rub it in his face how the real world
would react.
************************
Jeremy Wright
Network Analyst
Archer Daniels Midland
ja_wright@admworld.com
(217)451-4063
************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:36:32 GMT-3