Hmmmmm.
At least two meta-issues in play here.
1. It remains to be seen whether or not someone can assimilate all extant
written materials and possess the fleetness of thought required to fill in
any functional gaps that might result from the difficulty of conveying
knowledge/competence/expertise via purely representational means to a
degree sufficient to pass the hands-on portion of the cert. Historically,
Cisco has done a better job than all other established vendors bearing
certification in making sure that people's knowledge transcends
regurgitation, and has thus done a credible job of forcing people to assume
that their high-level certs are not conferred upon those with inadequate
amounts of real-world experience. Given a natural suspicion of all those
involved in the process of developing educational & psychometric materials
(although, the behaviour & output of the more famous members of the list
has led me to suspend that almost involuntary mistrust where warranted),
I'd almost be happy to see someone succeed, but I'd have to assume that the
number of possible circumstances that would lead to such a result are
dwarfed by incompatible/mutually exclusive sets of circumstances.
In this specific case, many postings to this newsgroup would indicate that
a voluminous amount of hands-on lab preparation time has been involved in
the attempt referred to within the confines of your reply. I'm not sure
whether or not someone with an impeccably accurate reading knowledge of
router & protocol behavior & a set of skills honed by means of an optimal
leveraging of a high-end lab setup might be able to successfully pass the
CCIE lab exam. I suppose it would be interesting to know if, in addition to
lower-level "paper" certs, there exist legitimately conferred "virtual"
CCIE certs.
In this specific case, many OTHER postings to this newsgroup would
indicate-on behalf of the candidate-a non-trivial amount of relevant
hands-on experience in production environments prior to the same attempts
referenced during my last paragraph. I'd assume that it's an open question
as to how much hands-on is sufficient to pass the lab, and that most
judgements are rendered impossibly complex due to the profoundly symbiotic
relationship between the representational & hands-on knowledge that is most
likely required to achieve the set of letters that provided an impetus for
a study group in the first place.
So, the relevance of your observation to the specific case is not clear. If
you can productively do so, please clarify.
2. Regarding a suggested new year's resolution:
While that specific notion has indeed saved the lives of a countless number
of individuals throughout the course of western civilization, I'm not sure
what constitutes "your own business."
In the case of a private conversation between yourself & Howard where you
explicitly discount the years of hands-on configuration, design &
troubleshooting experience as either too out of date or non-existent, a
third party forwarding the message and intervening might legitimately be
interpreted as NOT minding one's own business.
When an individual (or group: I well remember days of three individuals
owning three aol accounts would sit behind three computers plugged into the
same lan, sitting in the same room, would be able to to join chat rooms
hosted by AOL & swap seats to provide a completely different point of view
& some well-needed intellectual discontiguity to a conversation that
started off its existence well beyond stale) replies to a newsgroup
posting, notions of privacy and exclusivity are indeed compromised by an
implicit adherence to the operational design of the newsgroup. If you had a
constructive point to make and indeed expected others to respect your
wishes about those not amongst the two of you to mind their own business,
you would have established direct correspondence. If you were indeed
desiring to broadcast a commentary about someone else's post (even IF a
reply to your own) without engaging in revelant discourse about the
integrity of your argument or the correspondence of your propositions to
extant reality, then your post to the newsgroup would have to indeed be
regarded as an act in bad faith. If you intended to carry on a dialogue
between two INDIVIDUAL mail ACCOUNTS in such a manner that the entire
newsgroup would be privy to an exclusive information exchange between you
and what you hoped might be a target, then that constitutes the most gross
violation of newsgroup ettiquette that one might expect to encounter. Even
in my most contentious posts, I only attack a vendor for what I consider
bad-faith behavior. I EXPLICITLY leave indivduals out and EXPLICITLY
provide grounds by which I might be falsified.
Anyway, there remains ambiguity about the nature of the term "comments" as
it is deployed within your missives & Howard's. Directly outlining the
issues and possible points of misunderstanding/ambiguity might be
productive; ignoring the content of the reply is not. To the extent that ad
hominem attacks might have effectively discredited his remarks, more ad
hominem remarks of a substantially similar nature do not further your cause
any.
DISCLAIMER: I remember reading about issues about being able to record but
not save comments in various versions of IOS. I also know that
non-parameter related information might be snuck into a configuration via
access-lists or interface description commands. I claim no understanding of
either party's argument (certainly not that implicitly championed by the
less-well-known fellow [i say implicitly championed because I'm not sure
that he presented a workable argument, whether right or wrong]).
nota bene: trans-sovereign implementation of written english conventions &
repetition of certain key phrases ("parallel construction" the old foggies
call it) intentional.
"Cisco Cisco" @groupstudy.com on 12/31/2001 11:06:10 PM
Please respond to "Cisco Cisco"
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: (bcc: Kevin Cullimore)
Subject: Re: Why use wildcard mask [7:30597]
Here is a little wit and wisdom. There isn't enough
RFCs or books in the world to help you pass the CCIE
lab. We will be waiting for your third "I failed the
CCIE lab AGAIN" e-mail.
BTW... Your New Year's resolution should be to
consider minding your own business.
""Chuck Larrieu"" wrote:
> Speaking only for myself, I look forward to your wit
and wisdom when
> providing us wannabees with the knowledge we so
desperately seek.
>
> While you're at it, can you provide us with a list
of the RFC's you have
> written? And the books? I'd like to check them out.
Anything to improve my
> own understanding of how things work.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Chuck
>
>
> ""Cisco Cisco"" wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Howard,
> > If you actually worked on a router in the real
world
> > rather than just tell people you do, you would
know
> > that Cisco has supported access-list remarks for
some
> > time now.
> >
> > Oh I'm sure you're going to reply to this e-mail
with
> > some stupid story like, "This reminds me when I
was
> > talking to a developer at Apple about Mac OS 1.0
but I
> > had never really worked on an Apple" or some
worthless
> > story like that.
> >
> > Also do us all a favor and quit cross posting from
> > other mailing list. We don't want to see your
replies
> > to the juniper and ccie mailing list posts. Cross
> > posting can be dangerous when you're on some of
the
> > list the you are on.... wink, wink ;-)
> >
> >
> > ""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote:
> >
> > > >Yes, it does make simple tasks a little more
> > complicated. However, using
> > > >inverse masking can make complex tasks much
easier.
> > > >
> > > >Take this issue. Say you are asked to filter
access
> > to all odd 192.168.x.0
> > > >/24 routes.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Your method.
> > > >
> > > >192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0
> > > >192.168.3.0 255.255.255.0
> > > >192.168.5.0 255.255.255.0
> > > >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> > >
> > >
> > > I see your approach, Marc, and I have even
> > encountered real-world
> > > situations where such filtering might be
> > appropriate. It happened
> > > when an enterprise wanted to "leave room for
> > expansion", but didn't
> > > understand summarization. They assigned
> > odd-numbered subnets to
> > > different sites/areas, thinking the even ones
would
> > be for future use.
> > >
> > > My approach, incidentally, is to figure out the
> > number of potential
> > > areas or sites, then divide by a power of 2, at
> > least 4, to be
> > > summarization-friendly.
> > >
> > > There's no question that your approach takes
fewer
> > lines of code.
> > > Personally, I wouldn't use it except in a huge
> > network where there
> > > was no other way to fit that many lines into
NVRAM.
> > >
> > > My motivation for not doing so is
maintainability.
> > The more complex
> > > the mask, the more difficult it will be for some
> > subsequent
> > > administrator to figure out what was being done.
I
> > might be more
> > > open to the idea if Cisco saved comments with
the
> > configuration, but,
> > > of course, it doesn't.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
> > http://greetings.yahoo.com
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
| This message may contain confidential and/or privileged |
| information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to |
| receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, |
| disclose or take any action based on this message or any |
| information herein. If you have received this message in |
| error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail |
| and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation. |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30604&t=30597
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
