Based on the company's focus, it's quite possible that people with a financial stake in cisco's future are more concerned about getting customers to purchase internetworking gear at rates similar to those experienced during the last decade. Since a lot of gear out there consists of 25xx series devices, I can see how forcing early replacement of those devices via obsolesence might become a significant priority, thereby allowing them to sidestep questions over whether or not their code is as efficient (in various senses of the word) as it could be (which, in turn, affects the hardware specifications that must be adhered to in order to run a given version of IOS). If a side consequence is that their certs carry more weight, I can't see how they wouldn't welcome that (while at the same time conspiring to divert a greater percentage of would-be candidates' incomes towards purchases of preparation materials that cisco directly profits from). Market forces will eventually bring about the exclusion processes referred to in this thread, the rest devolves to questions concerning how gracefully and by what causal mechanisms those changes come to pass. Anyone with better insight into Cisco's motivations & priorities, please correct me.
Experience requirements can probably help raise standards applied to certification candidates, but it's worth keeping in mind that plenty of IT jobs allow their holders to coast, earning years of experience without requiring that they noticeably improve or update their skill sets. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck" To: Sent: 07 July 2002 8:13 pm Subject: Re: Off Topic - speculating on Lab equipment [7:48268] > not so long as Cisco is making a bundle selling "CCIE" study books and CCIE > Lab slots. ;-> > > Besides, the driver here is the channel partner situation, not the end user > situation. As you recall, it was at the time stated that the primary reason > for moving to the one day lab was to help out their channel partners. The > unforeseen consequence of the one day lab seems to have been that the lab > backlog is as long as ever. > > The CISSP folks finally got wise to the certification phenomenon in their > field as well. I seem to recall seeing some study materials in Borders last > time I was there. It is interesting that their response was to require more > verifiable experience, rather than more money for their test ;-> > > > > ""John Kaberna"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > That is why the CCIE program should adopt a similar rule to the CISSP. > You > > must have 3 years (as of this January it's 4 years) of verifiable > experience > > in security to take the CISSP. Cisco should require that candidates have > at > > least 4 or 5 years of Cisco experience prior to qualifying for the lab. > If > > a person lies they are automatically forbidden from ever attempting the > CCIE > > again. The lab rat problem would be for the most part solved. You might > > have a few liars, but when those people blow up someone's network they > could > > be reported to Cisco so that they can investigate if the person lied about > > their experience. > > > > John Kaberna > > CCIE #7146 (R/S, Security) > > > > > > ""nrf"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > ""Chuck"" wrote in message > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > just did some looking around on CCO. checking the current state of the > > art > > > > for IOS images for the 25xx routers we all know and love so dearly. > > > > > > > > it's looking like the images are getting so bloated that pretty soon > > they > > > > will exceed the physical limits of the router flash and dram. > > > > > > > > this could be disastrous to all us lab rats ;-> > > > > > > I know this is going to sound so bad when I say this. But maybe that's > > the > > > point - to cut down on the number of lab-rats. > > > > > > Yeah yeah, I know a bunch of you are going to read that and immediately > > jump > > > all over me. You're going to say things like "People should be allowed > to > > > learn what they want" and "Information wants to be free" and that kind > of > > > thing. > > > > > > All I have to say is this. Learning how to be, say, a doctor is not > > free - > > > it's unbelievably expensive. Not everybody who wants to be a doctor is > > > allowed to be one. You can't just decide that you want to learn > surgery > > > and then just expect somebody to give you a bunch of cadavers so you can > > > start cutting them up. You can't just walk into a hospital and demand > > that > > > somebody start teaching you medicine. And this is true of just about > any > > > profession - law, investment-banking, pharmacy, engineering, > > pro-athlete, > > > you name it. > > > > > > The fact is, all professions operate on the principle of exclusion. > Yes, > > I > > > know that sounds rough, but that's life. Not everybody who wants to be > a > > > doctor gets to be a doctor. Not everybody who wants to play > pro-football > > > actually gets to play pro football. And, yes, not everybody who wants > to > > > be a network guy (especially the senior network guy) actually gets to be > > the > > > network guy. Somewhere along the line, exclusion has to take place for > > > that profession to remain attractive. If it's medicine we're talking > > about, > > > then the exclusion takes place in getting admitted to med school, and > then > > > the grueling years of medical training which has the effect of excluding > > > people who aren't mentally tough enough to make it. If it's pro sports, > > > it's the harsh selectivity odds of being good enough to play > > professionally. > > > And everybody accepts this. For example, you don't see any huge outcry > > for > > > med schools to use open-admissions policies, where anybody who applies > is > > > automatically accepted. > > > > > > So the point is this. If network engineering is to remain a viable > > > profession, then exclusion has to take place somewhere. You can debate > > how > > > this exclusion is to take place. Should it be done through the lab-exam > > > (which is what it was, say, in 1995)? Should it be done through years > of > > > actual high-end practical networking experience (which is what it was > > > before the CCIE program, and what it is returning to, now that the > lab-rat > > > phenomena has sprung into being)? Should it be some other way? But, > > > somehow and somewhere, it has to be done. > > > > > > > > > > > of course, the images would be MUCH smaller if Cisco were to remove > the > > > code > > > > for things like Apollo, Vines, DEC, IPX, and IGRP...... :-> however, > > it > > > is > > > > probably not very easy to remove code, and why would they bother? > > > > > > > > so at what point do all of us students get screwed -when the required > > > images > > > > become so large that the 25xx is no longer viable? images capable of > > > running > > > > BGP, EIGRP, ISIS, RIP, and DLSw+ seem to require an enterprise > version. > > > some > > > > of those images are pushing up over 16 megs now. see what I mean? > > > > > > See above. > > > > > > > > > > > BTW - anyone checked the auction prices for 25xx equipment lately? > Token > > > > ring stuff is going for well below 200. Even the ethernet stuff - > 2501's > > > and > > > > 2513's - seem to be going for less than 400. big change in the buyer's > > > favor > > > > in the last year or so. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=48297&t=48268 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
