>Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Berkowitz.
>
>Although I hope you won't be upset if I mention that you're not really
>presenting a counter-point to the curriculum.

A little confused...I didn't think I was responding to any specific 
curriculum.  I was responding to a point that someone made about 
routing protocols being in the session or application layers.

I'm not even sure what CNAP is--Cisco Academy?

>
>I continue to maintain that the CNAP curriculum (despite it's many problems)
>is quite good when it comes to the model. It very clearly states that ospf,
>bgp, rip, et. al. are all to be considered network layer protocols. It
>doesn't make the distinction between "layer management" or not, but the
>result is the same. As I've argued in previous discussions, a model is only
>as good as the understanding that in facilitates.
>
>I'm as quick to bash the currciculum as anyone (no VLSM until Sem 5?- Give
>me a break!), but we should give credit where due, I think.
>
>:-{)]
>
>p.s. As always, Priscilla's answer was best. I've found that's a good rule
>of thumb to follow...




Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=21063&t=20953
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to