NOT being a wise-a$$ here... When is it appropriate to run BGP? I set it up at the last job I had because I felt it was the best way to get redundancy for web services. I had two T-1's, ASN, and had to guarantee 100% uptime for one of our clients. Plus the enterprise was becoming more web dependent with services we were offering.
Thanks, Mark -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of MADMAN Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 11:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151] n The same was true of my 2-day > test, again, I had done everything on both days by mid-afternoon and I just > sat around with nothing to do but check my work over and over again. Hmm, when I took the lab you were done configuring at noon on the second day at which time the liberty was taken to destroy what you had built and you then had a couple of hours to put it back together. Dave Nor is > my experience unique - I think that most CCIE's would agree that if you're > not done with several hours to spare, you're probably not going to pass. I > would venture that very few people that have passed the test have actually > required all the of the testtime that was allotted to them. > > What seems to kill people is that they don't read the questions carefully or > they simply don't know the material and then they consequently make > mistakes, and then in their haste, they start working too fast thereby > making more mistakes, etc. But again, if you know the material and you're > careful about reading the questions, the test is really quite straightforward. > > >>This is also probably why I got some seriously mixed reviews >>from >>different CCIEs in terms of the difficulty of the exams (be it >>one >>day or two day). >> >>For the record, the one day exam was more suited to my style >>than the >>two day sounded like. Oh well, I will never have a direct >>comparison >>now. >> >>The same was said about the two day as well in terms of speed >>but >>with some ancillary tricks such as the physical element, etc. >>I >>suppose that is good to know, but hey, nothing 5 minutes >>couldn't >>figure out on a web page. > > > I agree that the physical element was dumb. But the troubleshooting section > was absolutely critical, see below. > > >>The troubleshooting element was definitely a sorely missed >>element >>from the two day lab, but trust me, with the one day it is a >>dynamic >>truobleshooting element built in. It is VERY easy to break >>your >>working network while you perform the exam. > > > But not realistic. Let's face it - as a network engineer, how many times > are you really building networks from scratch vs. how many times are you > troubleshooting already-built networks? The fact is, building networks from > scratch is really only a minor part of the overall job, most of the time you > are maintaining built networks. A far more useful test would be one that > was PURE troubleshooting. For example, you get the whole morning to > familiarize yourself with the network, and in the afternoon, all kinds of > funky problems get injected into your network. One serious problem with the > present format is that you end up with guys who are really good at > configuring stuff but not very good at troubleshooting existing networks. > > >>Unfortunately, because it is more speed driven and because the >>content, while jam packed, is probably 'less', it also means it >>might >>be more prone to some form of bootcamp brain dumpage. But this >>is >>not really conclusive. It might just be that, the CCIE is >>becoming >>"more popular" and people have recently tapped into this >>market. The >>drop in Cisco gear pricing on the used market probably had a >>LOT to >>do with bringing down this barrier to entry. > > > Well, the market for bootcamps is pretty darn good proof that it's > conclusive. Think of it logically - why would people be willing to > consistently cough up thousands of dollars for bootcamps if they don't > work? Either all these people are all stupidly throwing their money away, > or you have to concede that bootcamps are making the test easier. PT > Barnum said that while you can fool all the people some of the time and > some people all the time, you can't fool all the people all the time. If > bootcamps really had no value, it is likely that this would be common > knowledge by now. > > >>Regretably, it is difficult to say whether or not it is the >>slippery >>slope we are going up if we really believe a one day exam is >>instantly easier than a two day and that is the reason why >>there are >>more CCIEs per month, or if it is because the failure rate is >>the >>same, and the expected value of passing CCIEs goes up due to >>the >>higher volume of candidates per month. >> >>Whether or not it is easy or not, I cannot say. I encourage >>any >>CCIEs of the two day to take a one day and see how it is. I >>only >>know of one who did it, and he felt it was worse than the two >>day >>lab. But, like I said, different types of people, different >>types of >>problem solvers. Might be easier for some. > > > My opinion- it's easier. Significantly easier. Another guy who has also > taken both, John Kaberna, has said the same thing. > > > But it's not just the 1-day vs. 2-day thing. It's an entire suite of > factors that together have degraded the difficulty of the cert. The CCIE is > suffering death by a thousand cuts, of which the format change is only one > cut (albeit a substantial one). Like I said, the proliferation of bootcamps > and dedicated practice labs, and all these other things all take their toll. > > > > >>One thing is true though. By law of numbers, even if the >>percentage >>rate of failure IS the same, since the NET number of CCIES >>passing is >>higher, by supply and demand the value of the CCIE is >>dropping. >>(someone else mentioned this as well). >> >>If the percentage of failure is even lower... then the value >>just >>drops exponentially. :) >> >>As for having a lower CCIE number, I do not care, I do not >>know. >>Most of the really older CCIE numbers I know tend to be >>mediocre with >>the new technology and are sick of knob turning anyway >>(although >>some are still verry good). The medium numbers seem to be the >>best. >>;) The ones on the highest numbers end seem to be a mixed bag. > > > I believe that people place far too much emphasis on knowing the new > technology. Hey, don't get me wrong, it's important to keep up. But let's > not overemphasize this point too much. For example, take the case of the > R/S CCIE which is the CCIE that is supposedly geared to enterprise-level > networking (those guys who want to do service-provider work are supposed to > be looking at the C/S CCIE). Some people have retorted that the low-number > R/S CCIE's don't know, say, BGP, so they contend that the higher-number CCIE > is actually more relevant and useful. But let's be honest - how many > enterprises actually run BGP? 1% at most? Probably more like 0.1%, or > perhaps even less? And even those enterprises that are running BGP - how > many actually have a legitimate need to run BGP vs. how many have just done > it for stupid reasons (something that myself, Howard, and Peter van Oene > have discussed before)? Even in those cases, how many actually have enough > BGP routers that they might actually need to run their own > route-reflectors? And furthermore, I have to ask, how many enterprises are > running BGP not because they actually need it, but because their network > engineer has decided to make things more complicated than they really need > to be because it means greater job security for himself/herself (i.e. "...if > I install BGP everywhere and I'm the only person here who actually knows > BGP, that makes it that much harder for them to lay me off...")? How many > enterprises are like this? I don't know the answer either, but it's safe to > say that the number is greater than zero. > > Or take the case of IP multicasting. With apologies to Howard Berkowitz - > pop quiz - name 10 popular IP multicasting applications that, right now, are > in use in the company you work for. Can't do it, can you? Can you even name > one? For most people, they can't even name a single one. In all my years > of networking, I have not run into a single enterprise that is actually > actively using IP multicasting. Now don't get me wrong - I know that there > are some rare cases of multicasting being used in the enterprise. But the > key operating word there is 'rare'. For various reasons, I believe anything > that could be done by IP multicasting could probably be done far easier > either through a broadcast network (for example, right now through my > digital cableTV service at home I get hundreds of TV channels - and quite > frankly most of them suck - and with compression algorithms improving all > the time, I may be getting thousands of channels in the near future) or > through an application-level proxy/cache/CDN arrangement. But the point is > that even the most fervent IP multicasting supporter has to concede that the > technology hasn't exactly taken the world by storm. > > Therefore the argument that the newer CCIE test supposedly has more relevant > technologies really doesn't hold water. In the case of BGP, most > enterprises don't need it, in the case of route-reflection most enterprises > don't know it and care about it, and in the case of IP multicasting, most > enterprises don't know it, don't need it and don't care about it. Or, let > me put it to you another way. The newest version of the CCIE no longer has > IPX or tokenring. Yet I think I'm on safe ground when I say there are far > more enterprises out there running tokenring and IPX than are running IP > multicasting or BGP route reflection. Therefore, of the older or newer > CCIE, which one is REALLY more relevant to present-day enterprise networks? > > > >>And while someone said the "higher number ones" have "less >>experience" that should not be true in theory since the CCIE >>was >>designed for people who already worked in the networking field >>for >>years. >> >>However, I will agree in practice, that does seem to happen >>often >>(higher numbers, less experience). >> >>I think as with all things in life, take the individual on a >>case to >>case basis. You are going to find good and bad apples in every >>basket. The CCIE is still a very good certification, I do not >>think >>anyone is denying that. But I do not think it is clear if it >>is >>blatantly easier now. > > > I didn't say that it had turned into the CCNA. But it's not the rockhard > exam that it used to be. And that's not the fault of anybody here. That's > the fault of Cisco itself. > > >>-Carroll Kong -- David Madland CCIE# 2016 Sr. Network Engineer Qwest Communications 612-664-3367 "Government can do something for the people only in proportion as it can do something to the people." -- Thomas Jefferson Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70952&t=70151 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
