Actually I believe that WAN-switching is a tremendously useful skill, because it is difficult to commoditize the way that, say, IOS has been commoditized. A full discussion of this can rapidly degenerate into a bunch of economics supply and demand curves, but basically it's very difficult for some novice to really learn WAN-switching. There's a large barrier to entry. Anybody can just pick up a couple of routers off Ebay on the cheap, learn IOS, and then compete for a basic Cisco networking job. Try doing that with a couple of WAN-switches - it's basically a no-go. This serves as pretty good job security for the guys who know WAN-switching, as they don't have to put up with relentless commoditization of skills that the IOS guys do.
On the other hand, if you want to learn Wan-switching, then why Stratacom? It is almost certainly better to learn, say, Lucent/Cascade or Nortel Wan-switching - something that has a higher shelf life. Anybody who's followed Stratacom should have noted that Cisco's support of the platform was lukewarm at best, and should therefore have seen the handwriting on the wall. While some of you might object to the above paragraph with a financial argument by pointing out the strong balance sheet of Cisco vs. the horrific ones of Lucent and Nortel, I believe that argument is neither here nor there. Sure, Cisco is doing well financially. But not Cisco Stratacom, which I'm sure is a drag on their bottom line. Conversely, while Lucent and Nortel are doing badly financially, their Wan-switching divisions are doing well (in fact, I believe Wan-switches are one of the few divisions that still generate decent profit). Lucent and Nortel therefore have had a much greater incentive to develop and promote their Wan-switches than Cisco has for Stratacom. ""Paul Jin"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Well, I think the earlier the stratacom experts agree, the better it is for > them. That is why my friends are all studying something else. Sure, when > the economy clears up, there might be some jobs doing wan switching but it > looks like most telcos over planned for both equipment and staff. So there > will be enough stratacom jobs > for a while but probably only for the people that are keeping their > positions. > > -paul > > nrf wrote: > > > > Exactly. You pretty much hit it right on the head - demand is > > so low that > > Cisco's decided that not only can it not support a CCIE > > program, it can't > > even support a CCNA program anymore. > > > > I don't want to be unduly harsh, as I believe all technologies > > ultimately > > have their proper place. But let's face it. The Stratacom > > acquisition > > basically sucked for Cisco. Sorry to put it so bluntly, as I > > know there are > > some Stratacom experts out there who will object, but you know > > in your > > hearts that it's true. Cisco hasn't put major development > > muscle into the > > Stratacom line ever since the last major hardware refresh, the > > MGX8850, > > which came out more than 2.5 years ago. Rumor has it that > > Cisco would > > really like to sell Stratacom off, the problem of course being > > finding a > > buyer. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=34316&t=34035 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
