Nah, of course not. What are you talking about, Chuck? We don't have any of those people on this list, not at all....
""Chuck Larrieu"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > this isn't turning into another one of those "whiny crybaby socialist I have > the right to get anything I want whether I pay my dues or not" threads, is > it? :-> > > Chuck > > > ""nrf"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > You can also look at things from the point of view of professionalism. I > > know Juniper is scared to death of dudes claiming to be Juniper experts > when > > all they have is Olive experience and zero practical experience with using > > actual Juniper routers in the real world. This is what's happening now > with > > the lab-rat CCIE who passed the lab because he just spent an eternity > > practicing on a lab setup, but has never run a production network in his > > life (ask my colleague, John Kaberna, how he feels about these lab-rats). > > Juniper would like to be a symbol of high-end networking, such that if you > > are familiar with their products, that means that you most likely have > > high-end ISP experience. To them, exclusivity means prestige. They > > definitely don't want to see books in the store about "JNCIE in 21 days" > or > > that kind of thing, just like Howard Berkowitz alluded to. > > > > And more to the point, Olives will become less and less useful over time. > > My understanding is that many of the newer features in more recent JunOS > > versions work great on actual Juniper routers, but do not work at all on > > Olives. So in the near future, you are basically going to have to get > your > > hands on actual Juniper routers anyway. > > > > > > > > > > ""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > >Juniper needs to help people become familiar with their hardware and > > > >software without having to pay 10-20K per router. The olive was the > > > >only way I know of to help people who don't have corporate sponsorship > > > >gain access to the Juniper CLI. Cisco has many low end routers which > > > >you can run BGP, etc on to gain experience that are in the 500-1000 > > > >dollar range. It would be in Junipers best interests to make it easier > > > >for someone of meager means to gain access to either Juniper hardware > or > > > >another method like the olive or I predict that they will be shooting > > > >themselves in the foot and never gain a good foothold in the market. > > > >Kind of like the way Apple does with their proprietary and expensive > > > >hardware and IBM did with the MCA bus and Token ring, etc. > > > > > > > >I'm not saying that Juniper should give their hardware or software away > > > >but it would make sense for them to make it easier to gain access to > the > > > >CLI. > > > > > > > >L8r. > > > > > > > > > The situation is very different from Apple, etc., because Juniper is > > > not aiming at a broad marketplace. I can quite easily imagine that > > > they do not have an incentive for people to self-study on their > > > equipment. They are quite successful in the focused market niche > > > they have picked. Independent figures from about nine months ago > > > projected Juniper would, pass Cisco in the carrier space sometime in > > > 2002; I don't know if that is still true. > > > > > > It may very well be that they have made a decision that they don't > > > want a certification that indicates someone knows their CLI, but > > > doesn't have a broad routing background--which simply can't be gotten > > > from hands-on alone. > > > > > > I have been investigating setting up a carrier-oriented lab for Cisco > > > learning, and I have difficulty coming up with configurations that > > > don't involve five or six student-controlled routers, plus at least > > > six infrastructure BGP routers. If I include being able to cope with > > > BGP errors, add a couple more UNIX boxes to that. Additional > > > equipment is also necessary for properly emulating layer 2 exchange > > > points. > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > >From: Michael Damkot [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > >Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:47 AM > > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >Subject: Re: Building an Olive [9:941] > > > > > > > >Sorry Carl, but on this one I am going to have to side with Joe, > > > >Juniper > > > >has requested that use of Olive's be terminated, and are no longer > > > >offering > > > >code nor support for them. Not because they don't want to help people > > > >learn, but olives were used outside their intention, thus they were > > > >terminated. Therefore, in my opinion, building and using and olive at > > > >this > > > >point is in fact theft. > > > > > > > > > > > >Just me > > > >Mike > > > > > > > >""Carl"" wrote in message > > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > >> Gee Joe, why don't you just get of this list and let people learn. > > > >> > > > >> Joe Lin wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Uhm.. > > > >> > > > > >> > Since JunOS code is copy-righted software. Asking for it > blatantly > > > >on > > > >> > an open forum is bad... > > > >> > > > > >> > And I think whoever posts a location for the software would be in > > > >> > serious trouble since there are juniper folks that monitors this > > > >list.. > > > >> > > > > >> > -joe Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30406&t=941 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
