Yes the two T-1's were from Sprint and Qwest. -----Original Message----- From: MADMAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 12:37 PM To: Mark E. Hayes Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Mark E. Hayes wrote: > 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 Were the two T1's terminating at two differant ISP's? If so BGP would be appropriate. If you have 2 T1's terminating at a single ISP in the same POP then no. Dave > > > > -----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=70995&t=70151 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
