Cisco Nuts wrote: > > Howard, > > Why in the world would Cisco start at 92001 for the CCSI? Any > particular > reason for such a high number?
I think CCSI uses hierarchical addressing unlike the flat addressing used for CCIE. :-) Also, to answer someone else's question, I think you get to keep your number (and use it?) indefinitely. I'm 96110, the 110th one in 1996. Must have been a good year. But as Howard has said, you can't really use the number and be an active CCSI unless you are currently employed at a Cisco Certified Learning Partner (or employed at Cisco itself.) My guess is that if you were inactive for a while and then went to a new learning partner, you would have to go through a barrage of tests again, but probably keep your number. But I don't know for sure.... Maybe if the economy ever picks up again there will be a lot of people trying to get an answer to that question. Not looking good for now, though. By the way, did y'all see this excellent article about teaching in TCP Magazine. It's called "So You Wanna Teach." The comments on the article are worth reading too. http://www.tcpmag.com/linkstate/article.asp?EditorialsID=135 _______________________________ Priscilla Oppenheimer www.troubleshootingnetworks.com www.priscilla.com > > Now we all know for a fact why the CCIE # start at 1025? > > So > > >From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" >Reply-To: "Howard C. Berkowitz" > >To: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: General comments on Cisco > Teaching > [7:64833] >Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 01:04:28 GMT > > >Howard > > >CSSI 93005 > > > > > > > > >Howard, > >If you were a Cisco Instructor years > ago, is it > safe to assume the CSSI > >number started at 93000?? Just > curios. > > >92001, I believe. Not sure. > > >On a serious note, are you > allowed to > still add the cert and number > >after your name if you become > inactive? > > >No one ever really came up with a good set of rules. > Recertification > >was never as well defined as it was with CCIE and the like. I > have no > >problem in saying "inactive" -- the irony being that I'm > currently on >a > subcontract developing internal courseware for Cisco staff. > > >Since a > CSSI is not all that meaningful except in the context of a > >training > partner, the active-versus-inactive distinction isn't that > >significant > -- if you are doing approved Cisco training, it will be >active > with the > partner; if you aren't, it won't. It's not as if you >can go > into > business as a Cisco instructor just by having a CSSI. > > > > > >Message > Posted at: > >http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=64854&t=64833 > >-------------------------------------------------- >FAQ, list > archives, > and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html >Report > misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=64939&t=64833 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
