a couple of comments in-line, like the skates:
""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > At 10:21 PM +0000 2/22/03, Kaminski, Shawn G wrote: > >You're talking about the old exam. While the Caslow book probably still > >covers some of the material on the new exam, the new exam is much more in > >depth on goofy stuff. Follow the blueprint for the best results. > > > >Shawn K. > > Different books have different objectives. Caslow, I believe, > remains the best book giving a general strategy for analyzing lab > scenarios and planning the lab effort, although it may be dated on > some of the specific technologies. > Caslow most definitely is a CCIE Lab strategy guide, and yes some specifics are maybe a bit dated. For example, Caslow suggests confgiuring your Lab in latyers, starting by doing the physical cabling, then adding the L2 protocols all the way around, prior to any L3 addressing. Obviously, since the candidate does no cabling in the one day scenario ( and eventually in the all remore rack scenario that no doubt is in the pipeline ) this strategy is obsolete. Even the 2nd edition was released two years ago, so yeah, it still talks about IPX, but many of the other topics covered are well worth considering. And yeah, Caslow doesn't cover certain topics which are seeing more point value in the recent spate of CCIE Labs. > Given the time lag of books -- often a year or more between first > contract and commercial availability -- you simply may not be able to > depend on a single review book for the written. There certainly can > be valid review books for specific new technologies, but they need to > be supplemented by reading in current online sources ranging from > CCO, to RFCs and I-D's, to reliable websites. > > There certainly are both free and commercial sources of scenarios > that explore the new technologies, but those won't teach the > underlying principles[1] -- which is more the focus of the CCIE > Written. Shawn gives a good starting point of printing the > blueprints and CCO material, although that isn't always enough. > > Don't rule out looking at the documentation of similar features from > other vendors. Long before I worked for Nortel (and I don't any > longer), I'd occasionally be baffled by something in the Cisco > documentation. Sometimes, I'd find the downloadable Nortel > documentation for the equivalent feature easier to read. "Match > template" , for example, is much more intuitive to me than > "access-list", especially considering "access control list" already > has well-defined meaning in security, a meaning somewhat different > than Cisco's. I'm fascinated by the access-list, which is Cisco's structure for initiating a lot of different things, including route-maps, security structures, filtering, and the like. It's as if the access-list is central to understanding Cisco in much the same way that certain kinds of structures are central to C programming. > > I'm comfortable with RFCs and reading IETF mailing lists, but I > recognize not everyone else is. Sort of an aside on that--with one > more conference call, I _think_ our BMWG draft on BGP convergence > terminology will be ready to go to RFC. Ironically, the most > controversial parts are in definitions that we needed to clean up > ambiguities in the current BGP standard, RFC 1771. The current draft > of the new BGP standard, which you can find by going to www.ietf.org > and navigating to "working groups" and then "IDR", is MUCH closer to > real-world practice than is 1771. For example, contrary to general > belief, AS path length as a BGP route selection criterion is not in > 1771, but is in the new draft. > > Howard > > [1] I recommend the term "principles" rather than "theory" for most > discussions > in certification. In my mind, "theory" is much more what protocol > designers consider in creating protocol specifications, while > "principles" > detail the implementation requirements and options -- and how they work > _within_ the protocol specifications. > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Larry Letterman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 2:34 PM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: CCIE Written Traning [7:63494] > > > >I studied the caslow book and did the paper by Dennis L. on > >the sna token ring stuff. > >The Boson test by the same Dennis was the icing on the cake > >for me...you will probably want to > >know MPLS/Multicast and QOS also now.... > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Kaminski, Shawn G" > >To: > >Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 8:11 AM > >Subject: RE: CCIE Written Traning [7:63494] > > > > > >> I don't know of any training classes for the CCIE Written, > >probably because > >> the CCIE Written covers a lot of oddball technologies, > >etc. If you did find > >> a class, all they would probably do is go over the topics > >on the CCIE > >> Written blueprint. Why bother paying for a class when you > >can do that for > >> free?!! Just go the Cisco site, print out the blueprint, > >and start searching > >> CCO on each topic. It's probably the best way to study for > >the CCIE Written. > >> > >> Shawn K. > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Arni V. Skarphedinsson > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 4:21 AM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Subject: CCIE Written Traning [7:63494] > >> > >> Can any one recomed a good traning class for the CCIE > >Written Exam, most of > >> the CCIE traning programs I see offerd are traning for the > >lab, after you > > > have taken the written. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=63612&t=63494 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
