""Henry D."" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Let me say up front, I don't have much experience in MPLS, I have > only played with it in the lab and not all that extensively either. > But CN is simply trying to get an idea of what to expect to go that road.
I believe that was precisely what I answered. > Is "nrf" saying not to advance in this field by studying Cisco's way of > emphasising MPLS ? What I said is that if you want to advance in that field, you will need substantially more than what Cisco wants you to know about it. Read my post again. >You know, we all have our doubts, he's brave enough > to come to this group and ask questions. As far as L3VPN's, why not > concentrate > on that at least to start with. I never said not to learn L3VPN's. Read my post again. What I said is that study of L3VPN's shouldn't be emphasized to the degree that Cisco seems to emphasize it. > It's still one reason to do the MPLS thing. > By just > doing that he'll need to touch on many aspects of MPLS anyway. He will still > use either LDP or RSVP, he still will use the LSP establishment, he might as > well > learn the TE options available for establishment of those LSP's. He'll need > to learn > how to use the LSP's for pushing traffic over them. He'll learn what and how > the > labels get pushed/popped. Then why not study it that way. He's not advancing > his > MPLS skills, he might not have any yet. He's simply trying to see if he will > be able to utilize any of the skills he will have to learn to make it worth > it his while. No doubt all learning is good. Again, read my post again. I never said that he shouldn't learn it. What I said is that he shouldn't necessarily learn it "the Cisco way". > > Well, maybe someone else with more experience in MPLS arena and someone more > objective can give a better insight as to whether there is a demand for > these skills. Are you implying that I'm not objective - that I have some kind of agenda? > > > > ""nrf"" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ""Cisco Nuts"" wrote in message > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Hello group, How does one feel about a career in MPLS...I mean doing > MPLS > > > as part of your core job day in and out.....Is it worth it? Since our > > > network does not use MPLS (maybe never will) inspite of being one of the > > > Big Four Tier 1 SP's.... > > > > Let me guess. Do you work for Sprint? > > > > >are there other SP's that use MPLS in their > > > backbone?? > > > > Yeah, there are some. > > > > >I have just given myself a month or so break from my CCIE Lab > > > Prep.(yeah!yeah! most would consider me stupid on this) to study MPLS > > > for the CCIP and am thinking if I should pursue this subject just like > I > > > did for BGP.....know it inside out cold.....and maybe consider a new > > > career/job in MPLS (obviously along with BGP, MBGP, MCast etc...) Does > > > anyone know of how MPLS is viewed out there? I mean, in terms of > > > implementation, popularity and last but not the least , $$$ ??? > ;->Which > > > of the Big SP's or Enterprise networks have implemented MPLS? Has it > been > > > worth the advantages that MPLS proposes??Thank you.Sincerely,CN > > > > The way I see it is this. MPLS is potentially powerful technology for it > > can be used as a lingua-franca among a carrier's network and transport > layer > > and also as a way to impose circuit-switching discipline upon IP and > > therefore offer circuit-switching services with a pure IP network. > > > > But MPLS is by no means a slam-dunk. Certain carriers, most notably > > Sprint, have elected not to go down the MPLS path because they believe the > > technology is immature (and they are correct) and also because they > believe > > that they can garner the benefits of MPLS by other means (also correct). > > The point is that while MPLS offers great potential, it also presents > > problems, so implementing it is not a no-brainer. > > > > And furthermore, I don't particularly like the way that Cisco is pushing > > MPLS, particularly in its cert program. In my opinion, I think Cisco's > cert > > programs emphasize the least useful parts of MPLS while neglecting the > more > > useful parts. For example, I don't understand why Cisco pushes LDP the > way > > it does, for LDP merely builds LSP's that correspond to the route table, > but > > what's so useful about having LDP's that look like the route table? It is > > far more useful to build LSP's that differ from the route table, but the > > methods of doing that are not really covered very much (if at all) in the > > Cisco curricula. Also, I don't understand why Cisco places such an > emphasis > > on L3VPN's, as if L3VPNs were the only important service that MPLS > enables. > > L3VPN's are only one of the new services that you can enable, and in my > > opinion, one of the less important ones. Far more important are the L2VPN > > capabilities and the ability to unify IP, ATM, and optical into a single > > management plane. The point I'm making is that if you merely study MPLS > > according to the Cisco curricula, you really haven't learned much about it > > that's actually useful. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=66634&t=66609 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
