Then I would say what you did is appropiate. I assume these T1's terminate on differant routers and your running EBGP between them.
I hope the Qwest link is stable :) Dave Mark E. Hayes wrote: > 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=71005&t=70151 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
