>"Stephen Skinner" raised the interesting points,
>So ,
>
>the answer to your question`s seem to be .....
>
>Yes if your doing a Cisco Exam ....
>
>No if your reading info from the CCO
>
>Yes/No depending on who you are talking too..
>
>a Question has just popped into my head......."What else that we quote as
>law (given to us from Cisco and other sources )in incorrect".....
>
>now that i would like to know
>
>steve
You've just crystallized in my mind the reason I'm always vaguely
uncomfortable about the people that want more and more advanced Cisco
certifications, as well as arguing the gospel according to various
review books rather than the original specifications.
There are definitely errors in Cisco material. In the past, certain
training developers simply didn't want to change them "because it
would confuse people." There are other reasons, significantly
including that the average course or test developer is not a subject
matter expert. Indeed, I know of firms to which Cisco outsourced
course development which actively did not want subject matter experts
writing courses, but instructional methodology people -- even if the
subject matter expert was an experienced instructor and course
developer. I literally got a downcheck in my performance review at
Geotrain because I insisted on being a technical authority rather
than managing external experts.
If I were hiring someone for a network design role, much less product
development, I'd be far less impressed by someone that had nine
specialized CCIE certifications, than someone who had published in
independent technical forums, could document real network design
experience, etc. Nortel's certified architect program, among other
things, requires candidates to document five networks they have
designed, with their assumptions and design choices.
The US military has had a lot of success with intensive training --
train like you fight, fight like you train. But there is a huge
difference in correspondence to reality of something like the CCIE
lab, and running tank battalions around the National Training Center
at Fort Irwin. The CCIE lab has an artificially small number of
routers; the NTC consciously outnumbers the US troops with people
with home field advantage--but regards the experience first as
learning and second as testing.
>
>
>>From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer"
>>Reply-To: "Priscilla Oppenheimer"
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: LLC Type 2 [7:8262]
>>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 19:15:33 -0400
>>
>>I found myself writing this paragraph for a new writing project:
>>
>>When NetBEUI and SNA are used on Ethernet networks, they take advantage of
>>the reliability of LLC Type 2. Because NetBEUI and SNA are legacy
>>protocols, the use of LLC Type 2 is diminishing. However, it is still
>>important to learn LLC Type 2 because WAN protocols, such as High-Level
>>Data Link Control (HDLC) and Link Access Procedure on the D Channel (LAPD),
>>also known as ITU-T Q.921, are based on LLC Type 2. (Cisco's HDLC is
>>non-standard and is not based on LLC Type 2, however. Cisco's HDLC is
>>connectionless.)
>>
>>Do I have it backwards? Are HDLC and LAPD based on LLC2, or is it the other
>>way around? Any other lies you can pinpoint in my paragraph? I know it's a
>>bit awkward still. I will polish it. ;-) Thanks for your help!
>>
>>Priscilla
>>
>>Thanks for your help!
>>
>>Priscilla
>>
>>________________________
>>
>>Priscilla Oppenheimer
>>http://www.priscilla.com
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=8391&t=8262
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
