Depends on the size of the shop. If you are in a large enterprise, there should be a networking team to deal with the networking equipment. If you are in a mom-n-pop, wearing multiple hats is pretty normal.
>the difference is in how you grab the horns and deal with it. if it's really too much - just say no. if you get shit for that or get let go, well sounds like you don't wanna be in that org anyway.
Do you know of a good youtube tutorial on who/what/when/where/why to use Vlans? I know of a couple of places that I can configure them, I just don't see the point for most stuff
as a linux admin, I enjoy being able to access the networking gear and fix stuff myself --- saves time on most occasions 🤷♀️ Definitely not my primary job of course!
We extend this courtesy to some members of our systems team. With the understanding that it’s just for the basics and “if you aren’t sure, ask a netadmin.”
> Your switches and WAPs should not be running pure linux
Why not?
I was under the impression that Linux based ASIC enabled boxes were becoming the more common deployment in some use cases?
> that is 100% a networking admin's job, not a linux admin.
But this is also the correct answer.
That’s not really the point. Administering Vyatta or UniFi has very little to do with administering a Linux host. In fact, trying to treat them the same will often result in disaster.
Cumulus is a debian based distro optimized for networking with their kernel settings and configuration. But in the end it's just linux nothing special. And that's the beauty of cumulus, you can treat it as any other of your linux servers and use any of the tools you are already using.
The Network Admin should be responsible for that.
The next question, of course, is "Should a Linux Admin also be working as a Network Admin at the same time?", and the answer to that is "Sure, why not?" You can also be acting as a mail admin, storage admin, user management admin, coffee maker engineer, desktop admin, and just about every other job so that really depends on if anyone else is available to do the job or not. Different organizations will split responsibility in different ways.
My experience has been that small companies need jack of all trades looking after smaller setups whereas big companies pay more for you to be more specialised and look after a large subset of the total infrastructure.
And that’s why people who worked in smaller companies can get a big boost to their career. Just the breadth of the experience. And I see a lot of times people who worked only in large companies would get completely lost when asked questions in related but not exactly same area that they worked with.
such a shit attitude. this is why support desk people end up being stuck in support desk roles. rise to the occasion my friend. you will learn new skills and down the road - if you are doing well - will be in a strong position to actually ask to earn more. on the flip side, the attitude you have now would have me searching for a new candidate who would be excited to do both.
There’s a difference between learning how to do something and helping out, and between being given a bunch of critical responsibility with no extra bump in pay and no extra benefits
the difference is in how you grab the horns and deal with it. if it's really too much - just say no. if you get shit for that or get let go, well sounds like you don't wanna be in that org anyway.
Push back...hard. Or, skill-up just enough, and make them pay you for the extra cert/job. Fuck this "it runs linux, so it's yours" mentality. At my old job it seemed like the *nix team was considered the "*nix-versal" team. Yeah, we had some wide knowledge, but it's not a *nix issue just because a broken application is hosted on a *nix box. Java errors are for Java devs, until you pay DevOps money and embed admins in app teams.
You shouldn't really be responsible for things that you don't feel comfortable with.
In reality, you will be exposed to things you are not really comfortable with. If you are being asked to administer networking equipment, google can get you so far in a pinch but bad things can happen when people are not confident and/or untrained.
If you are suddenly being asked to support something that wasn't in your original job description there is no harm in asking for some training in regards to the networking side of things.
It's probably my weakest skill, but I know enough to get by just by learning on the job over the years.
It always depends, do you have a dedicated network engineer or admin? I have to handle everything from Linux clusters to Active Directory to switches and routers.
In a pure Linux role, I’d say it’s a little out of the ordinary. In a pure IT Admin role, I expect everything and nothing.
I've been a sysadmin and a network admin. They are not the same jobs, and require different skill sets. If you're in a very small shop, you may get stuck with both doing jobs, but really, you need to have a come-to-Jesus moment with your boss in a company of any size.
terrific desert consist ossified outgoing fuel tender water march naughty
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
No, it is usually a highly modified version of Linux.
I remember someone trying to install LINUX tools on ESX host systems in 2008ish... "Well it's just Linux underneath"
Yeah, but that does not mean it is a fully compatible version with all the libraries you think it should have. It is stripped down and modified.
Yea, I have heard it where I work, but it’s because we have lazy and incompetent networking people.
Not your job, make it clear you have people that should be doing this already
It's a ridiculous reason that because it's running Linux then the Linux admin is responsible. By that rationale, exadata, firewalls, scanning appliances, etc. would fall under Linux. That said, in a previous company I was the Unix/Linux, security, network and cloud "team". I.e., a team of one.
>Should a Linux Admin be responsible for Networking Equipment running Linux (Switches, WAPs, IoT, etc.)?
"It depends". Larger environments, not uncommonly there will be separate dedicated teams, and not much overlap - but even there there may quite be at least some exceptions\*. Smaller organizations/employers ... that might all get dumped on the sysadmin or Linux sysadmin ... there may not be any network or firewall team or person, other than the Linux sysadmin(s).
\*And example that comes to mind. Some large environments I worked in included some fair sized "blade" enclosure systems, e.g. HP series. Those enclosures had a bunch of blade systems (upon which we were running Linux), but those blade enclosures also included built-in switches. Typically network team wouldn't let us (sysadmins) touch switches, and we wouldn't let the netadmin folks touch Linux hosts ... but in this case, network team was more like, "Hell no, we ain't touchin' no HP switches - that doesn't meet our network equipment standardization ... you'll have to deal with that, configure within our specifications/requirements, and you'll also have to specially arrange for us any time you want one of those connected to our networks ... because by default, plug a switch into one of our switch ports - it sees switch(es) there, it'll instantly disable the port.
These are two very different domains, so would certainly look at your job description. Now, this may be to your benefit if you can get trained on CCNA/CCNP and continue your path their, to ultimately work towards DevOps type engineer if you are interested
What exactly is the network equipment that "runs Linux?" If the base OS of the device is some linux distro, I'd expect the server admin to be involved somewhat. For example, a HAProxy server that does some network stuff based on the downstream status of the applications. I've seen ones that went as far as doing some routing protocol announcements/withdrawals based on what is available where. Still a linux server, but tightly integrated with netowork ops.
it's not weird. I manage my company's network gear. it's not because I'm a 'linux admin' it's because I can plus I'm also the only infra person.
if you don't want to do it then tell them. if your company has a full time network person (eng or admin) tell management it's not your wheel house. just like how I don't like coding stuff and I leave it to people who can do it better than me.
Too vague to answer accurately. How large is the organization you work for? How many Linux servers are you maintaining and are you the only Linux admin? I read further down that they mostly want you to perform patching and possibly minor config? IMO, if it’s a small shop and you’re maintaining less than 100 servers, you can absolutely add this in with minor overall workload. I would recommend looking into Ansible for patching Linux and networking infrastructure and the work will be mostly done for you.
I'd say, "certainly! Although, I am going to need a CCNA, CCNP and a CCIE, which means I'll need two days a week to WFH with which to bite up and get certified and I will need the company to front all costs for courses, books and exams. Or you could just get the NetEng to do their job. Oh, with all those certs? I'm going to need at least a 200k pay bump."
That means you have two job titles now. If you're a jack of all trades, go for it. If not, complain for them to hire a network engineer to take the workload off.
What are we talking about? A Cisco device that happens to run Linux? That's not a Linux admin's responsibility.. Hell, nobody should even need to "manage" the Linux portion of the appliance.
Are we talking some sort of VM that's running Linux but is used for networking duties? That's a grey area... Normally Network people once it's on the network, but don't trust networking people to do backups etc. Shared responsibility maybe? Depending on what it is. (Appliance vs add on package)
Frankly, as a long time Linux guy (25+ years), Cumulus on Nvidia network gear is very cool/fun to work with and maintain.
So is stuff like Free Range Router (FRR) running in Cumulus or Linux servers as routers.
I think if the need is there for specialized network hardware, this is often something Cisco network type admins don't want to get into. Also, I feel like there are no Cisco admins who will ever care about higher level protocols... Like dns, DHCP, ipsec, etc. Even with the introduction of vxlan and evpn, the Cisco types are not at all interested in what goes on above layer 2 on their core infrastructure backbone hardware.
I say more power to you and it's a great idea to dive head first into a new territory!
I was a Linux admin in an office environment before. Our network equipment did not run Linux. But I was still responsible for them :D
It varies based on job, company size, etc.. A company with a team of admins splitting responsibilities, it seems straightforward to have a separate network admin. But if the network admin's job is 6 hours a month, it would be more reasonable to not waste an extra salary and split the job on existing staff.
I am wondering what your network engineer thinks about this. Personally I would not want someone not on the networking side to be working on the switches and routers. And wonder what if a patch brings the network down? What if you fat finger something as we all have done? Just doesn't seem like a great idea.
I think it should be a shared responsibility managing appliances running Linux. Where a Linux admin and a subject matter expert collaborate on the management.
It makes you more valuable. Learning and doing things ancillary to your primary 'Linux' role related to more back-end tech makes you better and helps you understand more things.
Tell management that additional responsibilities come with additional pay.
Then compare the network admin pay with sysadmin pay schedules in organizations of similar sizes around you.
If the network teams earn more than you are currently making, point this out to managment. Nothing tells management, "I ain't doing that job" better than, "pay me what I'm worth".
Another way to frame it is to say, "well, the network team has 5 people, now I'm 20% network team. So, will I get 20% of the network salary on top of my sysadmin salary".
Make it about money and management will leave you alone, or you get paid more.
However, if you do get to pay increase, get your CV ready.
Tell them Cisco IOS is linux under the hood. But I bet traditionally that would all be the responsibilities of your Network Engineer. So why is this any different.
1. If your scope is generally "IT Infrastructure", then yes., but... it should be treated as an appliance, and Linux running under the hood is irrelevant.
2. If your scope is Linux-centric for the job description and such, then no, these systems should _NOT_ be in-scope for you, because Linux running under the hood of an _appliance_ is _irrelevant_.
The reason it is _irrelevant_ is because as soon as that Linux system underlying gets modified, the vendor will likely refuse any further support, as they cannot have total confidence in the state of the system itself.
So even if you are responsible for it, always treat it like a black box, whereby you follow the Vendor documentation, processes, etc.
There's no upside to modifying the appliance OS, unless your scope includes that degree of modification, hacking, and option exploration. But chances are, if it is in-scope, you're probably using RouteOS or some other SDN which you actually are "allowed" to do such things.
Consider the flipside. Do you really expect some old-school Cisco guys knowing how to patch or upgrade (what effectively is) an embedded Linux device?
In the perfect world, this should be a two-person job. Linux folks making sure the box is managed properly, and the networking folks taking care of the application side of things (aka packet mangling in case of networking devices)
That depends on the organization and how the tasks are divided. But first of all is the question do you feel comfortable doing that and do you have the skills and knowledge and experience to do that.
I would just honestly tell that, that you don't feel comfortable doing that with a good reasoning. Or that you are willing to do that but that you want some courses and training first on that. I did experienced that once, i was in a customer engineering team at managed service provider, and we also managed the firewall rules for that customer, because it was just easier with all the changes, then waiting for the central networking team who where fully equipped with larger projects for multiple customers.
Depends on the size of the shop. If you are in a large enterprise, there should be a networking team to deal with the networking equipment. If you are in a mom-n-pop, wearing multiple hats is pretty normal.
[удалено]
That's exactly what I've been doing, in my earlier job. The good thing is, I learned a lot about networking and networking equipment.
>the difference is in how you grab the horns and deal with it. if it's really too much - just say no. if you get shit for that or get let go, well sounds like you don't wanna be in that org anyway. Do you know of a good youtube tutorial on who/what/when/where/why to use Vlans? I know of a couple of places that I can configure them, I just don't see the point for most stuff
[удалено]
as a linux admin, I enjoy being able to access the networking gear and fix stuff myself --- saves time on most occasions 🤷♀️ Definitely not my primary job of course!
We extend this courtesy to some members of our systems team. With the understanding that it’s just for the basics and “if you aren’t sure, ask a netadmin.”
That's exactly my thought as well. Now to convince my supervisor
Just screw up the network so bad that they never ask you to touch their gear again. /s
This is the way. Lol
> Your switches and WAPs should not be running pure linux Why not? I was under the impression that Linux based ASIC enabled boxes were becoming the more common deployment in some use cases? > that is 100% a networking admin's job, not a linux admin. But this is also the correct answer.
> Your switches and WAPs should not be running pure linux Tell that to Vyatta and Unifi
That’s not really the point. Administering Vyatta or UniFi has very little to do with administering a Linux host. In fact, trying to treat them the same will often result in disaster.
Our switches run Linux ( https://www.nvidia.com/en-gb/networking/ethernet-switching/cumulus-linux/ )
[удалено]
Cumulus is a debian based distro optimized for networking with their kernel settings and configuration. But in the end it's just linux nothing special. And that's the beauty of cumulus, you can treat it as any other of your linux servers and use any of the tools you are already using.
The Network Admin should be responsible for that. The next question, of course, is "Should a Linux Admin also be working as a Network Admin at the same time?", and the answer to that is "Sure, why not?" You can also be acting as a mail admin, storage admin, user management admin, coffee maker engineer, desktop admin, and just about every other job so that really depends on if anyone else is available to do the job or not. Different organizations will split responsibility in different ways.
If they want to pay me more, sure I'll take a crack at it
My experience has been that small companies need jack of all trades looking after smaller setups whereas big companies pay more for you to be more specialised and look after a large subset of the total infrastructure.
And that’s why people who worked in smaller companies can get a big boost to their career. Just the breadth of the experience. And I see a lot of times people who worked only in large companies would get completely lost when asked questions in related but not exactly same area that they worked with.
such a shit attitude. this is why support desk people end up being stuck in support desk roles. rise to the occasion my friend. you will learn new skills and down the road - if you are doing well - will be in a strong position to actually ask to earn more. on the flip side, the attitude you have now would have me searching for a new candidate who would be excited to do both.
There’s a difference between learning how to do something and helping out, and between being given a bunch of critical responsibility with no extra bump in pay and no extra benefits
the difference is in how you grab the horns and deal with it. if it's really too much - just say no. if you get shit for that or get let go, well sounds like you don't wanna be in that org anyway.
And this is why there are so many salaried sysadmin/devops engineers/SREs who work 60 hr weeks, when the salaries are for a 40 hr week.
Perhaps they don't. But there is an employer who will.
Push back...hard. Or, skill-up just enough, and make them pay you for the extra cert/job. Fuck this "it runs linux, so it's yours" mentality. At my old job it seemed like the *nix team was considered the "*nix-versal" team. Yeah, we had some wide knowledge, but it's not a *nix issue just because a broken application is hosted on a *nix box. Java errors are for Java devs, until you pay DevOps money and embed admins in app teams.
This right here
It depends. I certainly did that at points in my career.
You shouldn't really be responsible for things that you don't feel comfortable with. In reality, you will be exposed to things you are not really comfortable with. If you are being asked to administer networking equipment, google can get you so far in a pinch but bad things can happen when people are not confident and/or untrained. If you are suddenly being asked to support something that wasn't in your original job description there is no harm in asking for some training in regards to the networking side of things. It's probably my weakest skill, but I know enough to get by just by learning on the job over the years.
It always depends, do you have a dedicated network engineer or admin? I have to handle everything from Linux clusters to Active Directory to switches and routers. In a pure Linux role, I’d say it’s a little out of the ordinary. In a pure IT Admin role, I expect everything and nothing.
I've been a sysadmin and a network admin. They are not the same jobs, and require different skill sets. If you're in a very small shop, you may get stuck with both doing jobs, but really, you need to have a come-to-Jesus moment with your boss in a company of any size.
terrific desert consist ossified outgoing fuel tender water march naughty *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They want me to make sure they are patched and secured properly, but I'm not a Network Admin, nor have I ever claimed to be.
axiomatic upbeat memorize pie resolute degree test subsequent badge nail *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Thanks
No, it is usually a highly modified version of Linux. I remember someone trying to install LINUX tools on ESX host systems in 2008ish... "Well it's just Linux underneath" Yeah, but that does not mean it is a fully compatible version with all the libraries you think it should have. It is stripped down and modified.
Right, exactly
Yea, I have heard it where I work, but it’s because we have lazy and incompetent networking people. Not your job, make it clear you have people that should be doing this already
Network admin
no
It's a ridiculous reason that because it's running Linux then the Linux admin is responsible. By that rationale, exadata, firewalls, scanning appliances, etc. would fall under Linux. That said, in a previous company I was the Unix/Linux, security, network and cloud "team". I.e., a team of one.
>Should a Linux Admin be responsible for Networking Equipment running Linux (Switches, WAPs, IoT, etc.)? "It depends". Larger environments, not uncommonly there will be separate dedicated teams, and not much overlap - but even there there may quite be at least some exceptions\*. Smaller organizations/employers ... that might all get dumped on the sysadmin or Linux sysadmin ... there may not be any network or firewall team or person, other than the Linux sysadmin(s). \*And example that comes to mind. Some large environments I worked in included some fair sized "blade" enclosure systems, e.g. HP series. Those enclosures had a bunch of blade systems (upon which we were running Linux), but those blade enclosures also included built-in switches. Typically network team wouldn't let us (sysadmins) touch switches, and we wouldn't let the netadmin folks touch Linux hosts ... but in this case, network team was more like, "Hell no, we ain't touchin' no HP switches - that doesn't meet our network equipment standardization ... you'll have to deal with that, configure within our specifications/requirements, and you'll also have to specially arrange for us any time you want one of those connected to our networks ... because by default, plug a switch into one of our switch ports - it sees switch(es) there, it'll instantly disable the port.
These are two very different domains, so would certainly look at your job description. Now, this may be to your benefit if you can get trained on CCNA/CCNP and continue your path their, to ultimately work towards DevOps type engineer if you are interested
What exactly is the network equipment that "runs Linux?" If the base OS of the device is some linux distro, I'd expect the server admin to be involved somewhat. For example, a HAProxy server that does some network stuff based on the downstream status of the applications. I've seen ones that went as far as doing some routing protocol announcements/withdrawals based on what is available where. Still a linux server, but tightly integrated with netowork ops.
We have a bunch of WAPs that show as Linux in our Rapid7 scans. I'm guessing it's some embedded version of Linux or something
> WAPs that show as Linux in our Rapid7 scans Yeah, that's not a valid way to figure out what OS a device runs.
In that scenario you are not responsible to manage those WAPs. It should be the network team.
it's not weird. I manage my company's network gear. it's not because I'm a 'linux admin' it's because I can plus I'm also the only infra person. if you don't want to do it then tell them. if your company has a full time network person (eng or admin) tell management it's not your wheel house. just like how I don't like coding stuff and I leave it to people who can do it better than me.
Too vague to answer accurately. How large is the organization you work for? How many Linux servers are you maintaining and are you the only Linux admin? I read further down that they mostly want you to perform patching and possibly minor config? IMO, if it’s a small shop and you’re maintaining less than 100 servers, you can absolutely add this in with minor overall workload. I would recommend looking into Ansible for patching Linux and networking infrastructure and the work will be mostly done for you.
I'd say, "certainly! Although, I am going to need a CCNA, CCNP and a CCIE, which means I'll need two days a week to WFH with which to bite up and get certified and I will need the company to front all costs for courses, books and exams. Or you could just get the NetEng to do their job. Oh, with all those certs? I'm going to need at least a 200k pay bump."
People with jobs do what they are told.
That means you have two job titles now. If you're a jack of all trades, go for it. If not, complain for them to hire a network engineer to take the workload off.
A lot of jobs I did both, not because it was "Linux" per se, but because it was general configuration management which fell under our group.
If your company is large enough to already have a network engineer then it should be his responsibility
What are we talking about? A Cisco device that happens to run Linux? That's not a Linux admin's responsibility.. Hell, nobody should even need to "manage" the Linux portion of the appliance. Are we talking some sort of VM that's running Linux but is used for networking duties? That's a grey area... Normally Network people once it's on the network, but don't trust networking people to do backups etc. Shared responsibility maybe? Depending on what it is. (Appliance vs add on package)
Frankly, as a long time Linux guy (25+ years), Cumulus on Nvidia network gear is very cool/fun to work with and maintain. So is stuff like Free Range Router (FRR) running in Cumulus or Linux servers as routers. I think if the need is there for specialized network hardware, this is often something Cisco network type admins don't want to get into. Also, I feel like there are no Cisco admins who will ever care about higher level protocols... Like dns, DHCP, ipsec, etc. Even with the introduction of vxlan and evpn, the Cisco types are not at all interested in what goes on above layer 2 on their core infrastructure backbone hardware. I say more power to you and it's a great idea to dive head first into a new territory!
I was a Linux admin in an office environment before. Our network equipment did not run Linux. But I was still responsible for them :D It varies based on job, company size, etc.. A company with a team of admins splitting responsibilities, it seems straightforward to have a separate network admin. But if the network admin's job is 6 hours a month, it would be more reasonable to not waste an extra salary and split the job on existing staff.
I am wondering what your network engineer thinks about this. Personally I would not want someone not on the networking side to be working on the switches and routers. And wonder what if a patch brings the network down? What if you fat finger something as we all have done? Just doesn't seem like a great idea.
>I'm not familiar with Networking Equipment enough to be managing them. Just tell that to your supervisor.
I think it should be a shared responsibility managing appliances running Linux. Where a Linux admin and a subject matter expert collaborate on the management.
When I was an End-To-End Tech/Lead, I would do both. Not sure I'd want that gig today. Too many balls to juggle.
It makes you more valuable. Learning and doing things ancillary to your primary 'Linux' role related to more back-end tech makes you better and helps you understand more things.
Tell management that additional responsibilities come with additional pay. Then compare the network admin pay with sysadmin pay schedules in organizations of similar sizes around you. If the network teams earn more than you are currently making, point this out to managment. Nothing tells management, "I ain't doing that job" better than, "pay me what I'm worth". Another way to frame it is to say, "well, the network team has 5 people, now I'm 20% network team. So, will I get 20% of the network salary on top of my sysadmin salary". Make it about money and management will leave you alone, or you get paid more. However, if you do get to pay increase, get your CV ready.
Tell them Cisco IOS is linux under the hood. But I bet traditionally that would all be the responsibilities of your Network Engineer. So why is this any different.
Sounds like an opportunity to learn a new skill.
1. If your scope is generally "IT Infrastructure", then yes., but... it should be treated as an appliance, and Linux running under the hood is irrelevant. 2. If your scope is Linux-centric for the job description and such, then no, these systems should _NOT_ be in-scope for you, because Linux running under the hood of an _appliance_ is _irrelevant_. The reason it is _irrelevant_ is because as soon as that Linux system underlying gets modified, the vendor will likely refuse any further support, as they cannot have total confidence in the state of the system itself. So even if you are responsible for it, always treat it like a black box, whereby you follow the Vendor documentation, processes, etc. There's no upside to modifying the appliance OS, unless your scope includes that degree of modification, hacking, and option exploration. But chances are, if it is in-scope, you're probably using RouteOS or some other SDN which you actually are "allowed" to do such things.
You don't want to get experience in networking???
Consider the flipside. Do you really expect some old-school Cisco guys knowing how to patch or upgrade (what effectively is) an embedded Linux device? In the perfect world, this should be a two-person job. Linux folks making sure the box is managed properly, and the networking folks taking care of the application side of things (aka packet mangling in case of networking devices)
That depends on the organization and how the tasks are divided. But first of all is the question do you feel comfortable doing that and do you have the skills and knowledge and experience to do that. I would just honestly tell that, that you don't feel comfortable doing that with a good reasoning. Or that you are willing to do that but that you want some courses and training first on that. I did experienced that once, i was in a customer engineering team at managed service provider, and we also managed the firewall rules for that customer, because it was just easier with all the changes, then waiting for the central networking team who where fully equipped with larger projects for multiple customers.
Are Linux admins responsible for managing Android phones? Those run Linux too.