even Cisco seems to concede that the CCIE is a permanent award - kinda like judges remain "your honor" and congress slime remain "Senator" or "Congressperson" even if they were run out of office as criminals.
The verification tool does note the inactive status. CCIE Verification Tool Yes, Jeffrey Doyle is CCIE number 1919. However, certification is NOT currently active. (Current status is Inactive). Brad Ellis"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > so if a CCIE loses his/her active status, does that give him/her the right > to continue to post their CCIE # in their sig and tell everyone they are a > CCIE? I believe if they lose active status, they are NOT a CCIE anymore > (sort of like a doctor losing their credentials). what do you guys think? > > thanks, > -Brad Ellis > CCIE#5796 (R&S / Security) > Network Learning Inc > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.optsys.net (Cisco hardware) > Voice: 702-968-5100 > FAX: 702-968-5104 > > ""Chuck's Long Road"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > according to the Cisco Verification tool: > > > > CCIE Verification Tool > > Yes, Stuart Biggs is CCIE number 1025. However, certification is NOT > > currently active. (Current status is Inactive). > > > > Chuck > > > > > > > > z > > ""Daniel Cotts"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > In my previous post I quoted a post from Terry Slattery regarding the > > first > > > CCIEs. In it he did not recall the name of CCIE# 1025. In the quoted > post > > > below he does provide a name. > > > snip > > > The first CCIE, #1025, is/was Stewart Biggs. My understanding is that > his > > > certification has lapsed and he's off doing something else. I took the > > test > > > > > > from him in August, 1993 and became the second CCIE, #1026. The lab > > itself > > > had > > > a plaque outside the door labeling it as #1024 (a power of two - kind of > > an > > > inside joke for networking/compuer jocks). > > > unsnip > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: MADMAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 1:57 PM > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: Re: No longer 4 digits [7:52146] > > > > > > > > > > > > CCIE 1040 sits next to me and I asked him if Imran (sp?) was his > > > > proctor and it was. Imran designed the orgianal program and it's our > > > > guess he was the proctor for the 1st CCIE. > > > > > > > > Imran was pretty tough, I remember talking to him at networkers in > > > > Denver when the CCIE recert first came out and about 100 of > > > > us took the > > > > test and only 2 passed. He chuckled stating his intention was to make > > > > it difficult so as to require studying. > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > Chuck's Long Road wrote: > > > > > > > > > > this topic of fascination for many often leads to a bit of > > > > confusion as > > > > well > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/625/ccie/ccie_program/ccie_pr > > > > esent.html > > > > > > > > > > shows the number of CCIE's world wide as of 7/31/02 > > > > > > > > > > The first CCIE number issued was 1025. Over the years, > > > > some have retired, > > > > > some have neglected to recertify ( including Jeff Doyle, last time I > > > > > looked ) > > > > > > > > > > So according to Cisco's numbers, on July 31 2002 there were > > > > 8031 active > > > > > CCIE's. > > > > > > > > > > As a sidebar, Terry Slattery, CCIE 1026, tells how he was > > > > tested by CCIE > > > > > 1025 ( sorry, I can't remember the name ) > > > > > The theory was / remains that only CCIE's should test candidates. > > > > > > > > > > No one seems to know who tested #1025, nor the criteria used. > > > > > > > > > > Chuck Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=52176&t=52146 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
