At 6:37 PM +0000 12/18/02, Mic shoeps wrote: >Hello > >I've been arguing with a collegue of mine which one would be tougher to >achieve. I told him that it would be much more harder to have a computer >science or a networking degree (you have to take the GRE and complete 2 or 3 >years of school works) than a CCIE, but my collegue think other wise. He >literally believes that having a CCIE is equivalent of having a Ph.d in >Networking. I'd like to hear your thought.
Well, let's look at some especially important PhD dissertations: Radia Perlman: http://www.lcs.mit.edu/publications/pubs/pdf/MIT-LCS-TR-429.pdf Steve Deering: http://www.tux.org/pub/net/ftp.ee.lbl.gov/sigcomm/sigcomm.ps Vern Paxson: http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/paxson97measurements.html The content of many protocol RFCs is at a level that might be associated with PhD level research, although some of the most productive people with both operational and theoretical knowledge are college dropouts. Look through the list of RFCs and see how many that someone with a CCIE, and no theoretical* training could write. For example, we have fairly strong data that the path vector approach of BGP will not continue to scale as the Internet becomes more highly interconnected and there is more churn/flap. It's not directly a problem of the number of routes, but their interaction. A reasonable dissertation would propose the theory of a protocol to replace BGP, with some experimental backup. ------------------ *By theoretical, I don't mean as is often used on the list: "how the protocol works and what are its messages." I mean WHY the protocol is designed the way it is, what alternatives were rejected, the problems it solves, etc. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59508&t=59481 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]