Henry D. wrote: > > I don't mean to start any type of argument here, especially > with someone > who obviously has more experience than I do. Yes, you've been > contributing to this study group many times. But also many times > your contributions are rather rethorical than practical and at > the same > time you seem to draw attention to what your opinion is rather > than to > give an educated and objective view backed by any type of real > life > examples. So yes, I'm saying that some times you don't quite > stick > to the subject at hand. I don't see how your view on Cisco's > curriculum > in re to MPLS can be taken seriously without you putting actual > examples > of how you came to that conclusion.
I took it seriously. I bet a lot of other people did too. And he did give examples. I think you are being a bit harsh on him. It seems like there may be some history here, which may be an inter-personal and non-technical issue, perhaps best relegated to an offline discussion. I hope we keep a technical discussion going though, (despite my non-technical reply. :-) Priscilla > Even if the knowledge > required for > achieving > Cisco's recognition in re to MPLS was not as advanced as one > would hope, > shouldn't we look at positives of the whole process ? > There are > still things > to be learnt, and emphasising them rather than the weaknesses > would be a > better idea. You won't become an expert just by passing the > test or taking a > trainig > class, but at the same token, you can still learn a lot while > achieving > those CCXX > goals. > > Anyway, I'm sure there will be a good response coming, so let > me be done > with this subject. > I had an early start today and I'm tired now. > > Good night ! > > > ""nrf"" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ""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=66646&t=66609 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
