This whole conversation rocks.......... For the record, I'm not a Cisco
zombie..... I read and learn what I can using the internet and books for
exams, but I in no way take this information to be "law". For that matter I
just had a quite interesting discussion with my brother-in-law about
science, and how a true scientist is willing to realize that science itself
is a chaning, adapting set of rules..... (i.e. how Einstein's physics showed
the flaws in Newtonian physics, which was "the law" for hundreds of years)
Same with ones understanding of networking, especially if a majority of that
networking knowledge was gained through study books from one or two
sources.... With something like the history of LLC or SDLC, I can see how
it would literally take someone who lived it to give concrete evidence on
how things came to be......
Very good discussion!
Mike W.
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> My own solutions may not fit all. I have several bookcases full of
> hard copies of RFCs, but, these days, I print a hard copy of a draft
> or RFC primarily to read it through the first time. When I refer to
> it, I most often just download a copy -- with a fast link, it's
> actually quicker than digging through directories. I also am on a
> number of IETF and operational (e.g., NANOG and RIPE) lists, and get
> a lot of the gist of things through constant discussion there. I do
> have a large number of books, but I tend to use them either for
> business case analysis or getting oriented to the specifications.
>
> Of course, experience helps. I'm honestly not trying to show off to
> say that I can't think when I've used a subnet calculator. For many
> routine problems, I can do the subnetting/supernetting in my head,
> or, if I need to be more precise, I write the relevant address parts
> out in binary, do calculations there, and convert back to dotted
> decimal. There are some tricks that help, such as having memorized
> certain mask patterns, but the real secret, as many have already
> said, is think binary.
>
> There are tricks to RFC reading. If there is an "applicability
> statement" for the protocol, read it before the protocol
> specification. Also, expect that the first few chapters of a protocol
> specification will be much easier reading than the detailed
> specification meant for implementer/programmers. At some point, you
> really need a computer science background in data structures,
> automata/finite state theory, etc., to internalize the
> specifications. You probably also need to have a good sense of
> interprocess communication and operating system design to understand
> what timers are doing and how failover works.
>
> There are some wonderful books that are probably out of print, such
> as Mike Padlipsky's "The Elements of Networking Style." I'm not
> being completely facetious to say that British comedy often puts me
> into the right mindset to do protocol design and analysis.
>
>
> >Where can you get manageable copies of the original specifications?
> >I've only been in this environment for 3 1/2 years, I'm trying to
> >grasp as much knowledge as possible as quickly as possible. Reading
> >certification books seems like a good first step. My goal is to
> >someday be precise to the point of being able to quote RFCs and
> >original specs. Does anyone have any book recommendations or do I
> >have to keep downloading RFCs?
> >
> >My reading list right now includes:
> >
> >Various Cisco Press books (taking CID test tomorrow)
> >Computer Networks 3rd edition (Andrew S. Tanenbaum)
> >Designing Routing and Switching Architectures for Enterprise
> >Networks (Berkowitz)
> >IPSEC (Doraswamy)
> >
> >
> >Christopher A. Kane, CCNP/CCDA
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Howard C. Berkowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 3:19 PM
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Re: LLC Type 2 [7:8262]
> >
> >
> > >"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=8466&t=8262
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
