Duy Nguyen wrote: > > Would it be a good idea to make the CCIE Lab adaptive? 1st, > everyone will > try a screener test of overall technologies. Once you have > finished, they > will give you a lab book that they believe are more challenging > to you. How > many lab books do they have, maybe a hundred? So, in that case > bootcamps > would have a hard time knowing everything Cisco have up their > sleeves.
That's a decent first step. But I would go further. I would actually mix up the equipment. Let me explain. Another thing I've been thinking about for awhile is to have racks that are actually different. Why exactly does each test rack have to have exactly the same hardware - the same routers with the same interfaces, the same switches, the same everything? Why can't racks be different, except for the fact that such a thing is logistically easier for Cisco to run? For example, one rack could be all Catalyst switches. Another rack could have all routers with ISDN. Another rack could have all routers connected via ATM. I believe if you had a variety of racks, you could offer a test that was much more realistic. All the production networks in the real world are all different, so why should all the test networks be the same? Some real-world networks consist of mostly switches, some are dial-centric, some are ATM-oriented, some are like this, some are like that, and after all, since the test supposedly prepares you for the real world, doesn't that mean that it should also include some of the smorgasboard variety that you will see in the real world? Furthermore, one of the larger 'corrupting' factors I see these days is guys trying to build home-labs that exactly replicate the test rack. I'm not faulting the test candidates who do such a thing, because I understand why candidates would want to maximize their chances of passing. But I think the true purpose of the CCIE is to demonstrate acuity with technologies and concepts, not to run around trying to get a perfect facsimile of the test hardware. Again, the purpose of the CCIE, supposedly, is to prepare people to take on real-world networking. Let's say your boss gives you a network to run - say 100 Cat6500's - are you going to then need to have your own lab of 100 Cat 6500's before you can do anything useful? I hope not. The point is that if you have a good grounding of networking concepts, you should be able to flexibly adapt to any topology and any combination of networking hardware that's thrown at you. No network engineer will obviously be able to own test hardware that can actually replicate every single network in the world. Imagine taking a job at Worldcom - unless you're Bill Gates -you're not going to build your own test network that will replicate Worldcom. So why should this behavior be encouraged within the CCIE program? Let me reiterate, I'm not faulting individual test-takers for trying to get that test rack facsimile, I am faulting Cisco for encouraging this kind of behavior. It's simply yet another way that the test is not realistic. This sort of thing would be greatly reduced if you simply had lots of different test racks, which would imply that it would be daunting to actually try to get all the gear to properly replicate every single possible rack you might get (with all the different interfaces and whatnot), which would mean that the focus would shift from trying to get perfect copies of the test hardware to developing a deep understanding of the underlying technologies and concepts so that you can properly handle any topology and any hardware that is thrown at you, and that's really where the focus should have always been. The biggest objection I'm sure to hear are logistical arguments that I alluded to before. For example, some people will argue that it would be impossible to have lots of different kinds of racks in all the CCIE lab locations in the world. To that, I would say that, as a test candidate, since all the cabling is already done for you and you got all the figures and network diagrams, why exactly do the candidates even have to be in the same room as the racks at all? Put all the different racks in San Jose and all the locations can just connect to San Jose remotely through remote terminal servers. Anybody who's taken the lab lately (after they moved from 2 days to 1 and got rid of the cabling portion) can attest to the fact that as a candidate, you probably don't even look at your actual rack - that you really couldn't care less if the rack is right next to you. All you care about is what is the address of the console server and what pieces of gear are connected to each console connection. Where exactly the hardware is, who cares? Another objection is that such a thing would make the creation of tests harder, because you'd have different racks with obviously different connectivity which would imply that Cisco would need to spend more work in creating test questions. Yeah, so what? Cisco needs to spend more time creating test questions. Let's face it, the tests right now tend to be quite repetitive. Without violating NDA, I think we all know that certain things are just ALWAYS on the test, and I mean ALWAYS. But why - those things aren't in all (or even most) real-world networks, so why should they be a part of all test networks? The simple fact is, the CCIE program badly needs a more diverse set of questions, and utilizing a broader playing field is an excellent way to facilitate that. The final objection I have heard is that it will make test grading harder. For example, one person might get the "ISDN rack" and fail whereas he might have passed if he had gotten the "switching rack", or something like that, and therefore a certain element of dumb luck enters into the fray. First of all, that already happens now - if you happen to get test questions on subjects that you know very well, you are far more likely to pass than if you get test questions on subjects that you know poorly. Second of all, hey, welcome to the real world, where no 2 networks are alike. Again, if your grounding in concepts is good, you should be able to handle the variety. Third, need I say it, such objections could be properly addressed through my old idea of relative scoring (but I digress....) Anyway, the point is, now I think it is time for Cisco to seriously consider using different racks. I see little reason besides inertia and nostalgia for all test racks to always be exactly the same. > > > Personally I think the best way to solve this problem is to > force people > to > > recertify by taking the current lab exam again. No more of > this BS where > > guys can just take a written exam to recertify. You want to > continue > > calling yourself a CCIE? Then you should have no problem in > passing the > lab > > again. Otherwise, we'll convert your status to 'retired > CCIE' or CCIE > > This would be pretty harsh for all CCIE's that have to retake > the test again > just to be recertified. Not to be unduly rough, but it shouldn't matter whether it's harsh or not. It's their choice about whether they want to recertify or not. Nobody's forcing them. If they maintained their skills, then they should have no problem in passing. If they didn't, then, well, they don't deserve to be called 'experts' anymore. >How about give them a half-day of > troubleshooting? > Bootcamps can teach you to memorize configurations, but its > pretty hard to > memorize how to troubleshoot different type of breaks. > Instinct is key > here. Again, same idea as I previously stated on top. Take a > screener test > of overall technologies. After that, they'll give you a > problem and tell > you, "the clock aready started. You just wasted 2 minutes > staring at me." It's good that you see that the recert process is broken also. The only question is what to do about it. Any sort of hands-on process is better than that stupid written recert deal they got going now. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71062&t=70151 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
