""nrf"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > """Chuck Whose Road is Ever Shorter""" wrote in > message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ""nrf"" wrote in message > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > The simple answer is that yes, ISIS is a possible topic for the R/S > exam. > > > > > > The better question to ask is why? The R/S is supposed to be an > > > enterprise-networking oriented exam. Those who are interested in > carrier > > > routing where ISIS is most commonly found should be looking at the C/S. > > > Let's face it, at this time ISIS is not exactly a particularly common > > > enterprise technology, so why test such an obscure enterprise protocol > on > > a > > > supposedly enterprise-oriented test? I suppose a tenuous case could be > > > made if it was surmised that ISIS was destined to expand its presence in > > the > > > enterprise, but honestly now, does anybody seriously think this is going > > to > > > happen? For example, does anybody seriously believe that in say, 10 > > years, > > > there is going to be more ISIS in real-world networks as a percentage of > > > total usage? Especially in the enterprise? Right. So again, on a > > > supposedly enterprise-oriented test, why test a technology that is rare > in > > > the enterprise and getting rarer every day? > > > > > > > > the answer is simple and practical. What with the one day lab and the > speed > > with which cheats get circulated, lab scenarios are revised much more > often > > than they used to. Adding IS-IS allows for more permutations to add to the > > mix. Especially now that IGRP is no longer there. The proctors still need > > lots of ways to screw you with redistribution. IS-IS redfistribution gives > > them that in spades. ;-> > > Ah, so you betray the truth - it really doesn't have anything to do with > making sure the exam has real-world relevance but is really just a 'game'. > > If obtaining more test question permutations was really the goal, I have to > appeal to one of my old proposals, which to simply make the test racks > different. Why does every single test rack have to be exactly the same? > Why can't there be one rack that consists of all switches, and another rack > that consists of all ISDN routers, and another rack consist of all routers > with ATM interfaces etc. etc.? Then you would have permutations galore. > For example, you can't do much testing on switch technology with only 2 > switches, but string 8 of them together and you could come up with elaborate > and elegant spanning-tree scenarios. You can't do a whole lot of dial > scenarios with only 2 ISDN routers (one router will dial the other - big > whoop), but if you have a 4 or 6 of them, your dial scenarios can be most > intricate. > > Cisco wouldn't even need to get new hardware - they could simply rearrange > the existing racks - so hardware costs are not a serious objection. Some > people might say that such a test might be unfair because a person might > happen to get the "switch rack" and fail but he might have passed had he > gotten the "dial rack", yet the same thing happens today - for example, > today you might get a version of the test that happens to ask you about > technologies that you don't know well and you henceforth fail, whereas you > might have passed had you gotten the version that happened to ask you about > things you know very well. So I don't really see that my proposal is > significantly more unfair than the situation of today.
recognizing Cisco will not go to a week long exam, I'd still like to see a variation of this, where you have several different racks ( all routers, all switches, all dial, a BGP rack, and an MPLS rack ) and you have to score well on all of them to get your advanced cert. call it the "supersized" CCIE! > > > I do agree that my proposal would take test development work because Cisco > would basically have to come up with a brand new set of test questions. But > look at the situation right now - Cisco is constantly changing the test > anyway, so they do a lot of development work anyway. And since every single > real-world network topology is different, it would be highly realistic if > every single test topology is different. These changes would therefore make > the test more realistic and at the same time give Cisco a breeding ground > for all the permutations they want (again, imagine what you could do with 1 > rack of just switches, another rack of just dial-routers, etc.). Sounds > pretty good, no? you, sir, are a wicked man! I do like the "all switch" idea. At work I've been assigned to work with a number of large customers who have very large switched environments. The contracts generally call for a relatively simple core-distribution-access topology which is proving to be woefully inadequate in most of these enterprises. So much so that just about ev ery one of them is resorting to some variation of a high speed routed core with multiple gigabits of bandwidth between core devices, and multiple independent switched domains underneath. I was chatting with one of the network folks about some severe problems he was having when it occured to me that at some level the core-distribuion-access model breaks down, particularly when you treat it literally. I gotta wonder about a large switched domain - at what point do you introduce things like MSTP to keep things under control? I'm talking organizations in the 15-20K port range with distributed cores ( core switches in multiple building ) and multiple links between the core buildings. So I wouldn't mind more complexity in switch topoloigy and testing. Although to be truthful, testing even 8-12 switches in a rack can't give you the kind of complexity I'm seeing in my customers' environments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ""Chibwe, Oliver J, NEO"" wrote in message > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Yes it is live and well! if you look at the Cisco's blueprint under > all > > > > the routing protocols yes it is tested if I were you I would get me an > > > > IS-IS book......from Amazon. COM used one...IS-IS is a very > interesting > > > > link-state protocol with respect to OSPF similarities and > > > > differences.....Believe it or not it is being used by some ISPs right > > > > now....so that's another reason for Cisco to explore that market if > you > > > > will..... > > > > > > > > Thank you > > > > > > > > Ollie > > > > AT&T Common Backbone > > > > 866-397-7309 Opt 1 > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: PPC-DAT Ep-Ng-Ist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 7:55 PM > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: IS-IS [7:74508] > > > > > > > > > > > > Is IS-IS tested on the ccie lab exam? > > > > Rgds, > > > > Akpome. > > > > **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: > > > > http://shop.groupstudy.com > > > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > > > **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: > > > > http://shop.groupstudy.com > > > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > > > **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: > > > > http://shop.groupstudy.com > > > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > > **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: > > > http://shop.groupstudy.com > > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: > > http://shop.groupstudy.com > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: > http://shop.groupstudy.com > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=74631&t=74508 -------------------------------------------------- **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
