gotta get this guy to talk more. there is much of interest and worth in this post. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Medeiros Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2001 12:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: One Journalist's Opinion of CCIE (Warning !!! longish ) [7:19098] I have to agree with many, if not all the points raised by everybody. My humble take is that there are 4 types of knowledge a great, capable of hands on, design, etc. network engineer should have in the perfect world. CCIE or not. Bear in mind that I am talking about a network engineer that basically works with the equipment and maintains and designs networks. Other types of network engineers that design hardware, software, and protocols will come under a way different set of rules I would think. 1. Basic network and protocol knowledge: This should be how all layer 2, 3, 4 and many layer 7 protocols work including the management plane protocols, routing protocols, STP, etc. Not necessarily what all the frame/packet/segment structures look like and where and what each field in the PDU is and does. But enough PDU structure to know what the engineer is looking at and understand how they work. Although this is all excellent knowledge to have, I think it's improbable (at least for me) to know all the PDU structures in detail. The main thing is to know the behaviors (especially TCP) and how things can go right or wrong. Some layer 1 stuff is good to know too!! Like what does it mean when I have slips on my T1 interface or how a DS-3 works. Other things are cabling issues, what box does what, where do I use a certain box (bridge vs.router, etc.), design best practices, security issues and techniques. Also host behavior and configuration knowledge is invaluable. I'm sure I left out a bunch of stuff, but that is what I see as important(in my limited experience) to know Most, if not all of number 1 can be learned by reading books, RFC's white papers, etc. Hands on experience will certainly help. 2. Platform specific configuration: It's great to know all the above stuff, but If I can't make it happen on whatever I am configuring be it Cisco, Foundry, Extreme, or whatever. I am of little use as a hands on engineer. It's nice to know how EIGRP installs a feasible successor, But if I can't get my routes to propagate correctly because I left out "no auto summary", that knowledge doesn't serve me like it should. OT. Why Cisco doesn't remove ALL classfull behavior from that damn protocol is beyond me!! Again, I believe it's improbable to know how to configure everything on even one vender or platform. But, the engineer should know when to punt and ask for help. Or know how to access and find the information he/she requires. And I don't just mean calling TAC :) Even though the wonderful people at TAC have gotten my ass out of a ringer many times. The Items in Number 2 comes from some book knowledge. But hands on experience is key. The experience of producing a complex config and fighting to make it work is the best teacher I know of. Be it in a lab or live network. I never forgot the first time I got a DS-3 of ATM with about 15 pvcs to work. Or even the first time I brought up a simple frame link and pinged across and watched my routing table to grow !!! It was almost better than sex !!(don't tell my wife please !!) I know, I'm sick. :>/ 3. Experience, PERIOD !! Many a time it has been when I fought to get something to work and couldn't. I checked the config against CCO, changed IOS's, changed modules, changed my underwear, etc. Ending calling up a more knowledgeable peer to have her tell me: "Oh, it's BLA, BA BLA". Type in the undocumented "BLA BA BLA and it will work." That is why having peers and is essential to survival in this business. Everybody of Group study is my peer whom I glean information and support. I am a firm believer in "no man/women is an island' !! And NOBODY knows everything. 4. The ability, motivation, and tenacity to solve problems, learn, and do a good job. (self explanatory) I believe no attribute in itself is the most important, we need all of them. Sorry everybody for the long post. I'll refrain from posting for a while. Tony M. #6172 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Leigh Anne Chisholm" To: Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 9:59 PM Subject: RE: One Journalist's Opinion of CCIE [7:18843] > Actually, it's likely the lawyer fresh out of lawschool will do a better job > than the cratchety old lawyer that's had a few years to become jaded by the > system or to get an over-inflated view of themselves. The new kid on the > block has something to prove so he'll go that extra mile to do a superb job. > Did I mention I used to head up an IT division at a major Canadian law firm? > (-: > > My point is... experience doesn't always matter. Brilliance and the > willingness to do a good job can compensate quite well for experience. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > Chuck Larrieu > > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 10:48 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: One Journalist's Opinion of CCIE [7:18843] > > > > > > hey, Brad, aren't you the guy who was complaining on the other list about > > what the one day lab would end up doing? ;-> > > > > may I point out that the CPA or the State Bar, or the real estate broker's > > exam, for that matter, are very difficult, and only a small percentage of > > takers pass first time through. So who do you want doing your taxes - the > > guy fresh out of accounting school, or the guy with a few years > > experience? > > How about if you find yourself in court for one reason or > > another? Want that > > lawyer fresh out of law school who happened to pass the bar first try > > through? Hey - he's smart enough! Isn't he? > > > > and for those wondering, I deliberately avoided using real estate broker > > examples because the house its up for sale, and I don't care about > > credentials, just as long as I get my price. Any CCIE's out there want to > > come live in California? > > > > Chuck > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > Brad Ellis > > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 9:10 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: One Journalist's Opinion of CCIE [7:18843] > > > > > > Chuck, > > > > Hi! Don't get me wrong, Im not saying CCIE's sh*t don't stink!!! > > I know a > > few CCIEs that I would let touch my network. However, I consider that the > > EXCEPTION and not the RULE. As a general rule of thumb, I > > consider the CCIE > > level of knowledge and applicable skills to be higher than "minimal > > competence." I suppose it really depends on your definition of "minimal > > competence." I define minimal competence as someone who has a fundamental > > understanding of networking with a small amount of hands-on experience. I > > would generally classify a CCIE to have a more in-depth understanding of > > networking fundamentals and quite a bit more hands-on experience than > > someone with minimal competence. > > > > Mr. Seltzer's writing says that the average CCIE is minimally competent in > > the product (I'd guess he was referring to Cisco). I think that's like > > saying NBA basketball players are minimally competent basketball players. > > To Michael Jordan that's probably true, but Im sure the general > > public would > > disagree. I suppose it really comes down to your definition of "minimal > > competence." I have a great deal of respect for the majority of other > > CCIE's who I have come in contact with and consider calling them minimally > > competent to be an insult. > > > > -Brad Ellis > > CCIE#5796 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=19115&t=19115 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
