RE: My CCNA test -Tips to follow
Paul, The Suresh link didn't work for some reason. Can you verify the url? Paul Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: [snip] Microsoft does. The test was true to the objectives! Purchased the CCNA = Preparation Kit from www.sureshshomepage.com and Todd Lammle's Sybex = book. Suresh has got good amount stuffs really you can make use of it. = To tell you the truth, out of the 65 questons I was asked at the real = test, about 40Qs line-by-line were from Suresh's kit. I was really = zapped.=20 [snip] Regards, Jack Nalbandian, CCNA, MCSE Network Engineer DATAFLEX - U.S. Operations 310.445.1052 x275 [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www.telephonyexperts.com <http://www.telephonyexperts.com/> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: CCNP Material: What's better?
My humble opinion: Get both books, if you can afford them. Lammle [Sybex] is fantastic at making things clear and concise, but you will need the Cisco Press material for more in-depth information. -Original Message- From: Daniel Lob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 5:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: CCNP Material: What's better? I live in Argentina. There are not many Academies where to take the courses for CCNP. So I wonder if it's enough just to study from the books, and do the labs at work. Anyway, I want to know which are the best books. Cisco Press or Todd Lammle? Daniel Lob Buenos Aires Argentina _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Concerning the importance of Certs [7:5935]
Dear friends, [NOTE; the caps are not SCREAMS but HIGHLIGHTS] I am also relatively new to this list and have been reading much of the correspondance dealing with the day to day issues of networking; which have been very valuable. But the discussions on whether or not certs are worth their while have been shoved back and forth too many times. In my very humble opinion, the cert program makes you focus on the fundamentals. It is a very good stepping stone from total ignorant, such as what I was when I jumped with both feet into the IT world, to someone who has a fairly decent VOCABULARY to start READING THE STORY and TRAVELLING THE TERRITORY. Also in my very humble opinion, VERY humble opinion, since I am not even close to being there with the CCIE (or JNCIE, whichever is the victor in the end - or even if that will ever matter - be both if you can): If the CCIE cert program is as intense as described merely by its failure rate and the vastness of the material to which one has to be exposed to earn the thing, then that person with the CCIE will have a VERY LARGE vocabulary to get a great HEAD START, much greater than one who is not exposed to the broad (albeit "somewhat theoretic") material, if not GETTING THERE right away, depending on the context. I am at this point to be fortunate enough to be pushing away at VOIP and Ethernet technology in a practical environment: Guess what? The MCSE got me to the first round, and the CCNA to the second, because both gave me ADEQUATE BACKGROUND to START THE TRUE LEARNING PROCESS MORE EFFICIENTLY in the WORK ENVIRONMENT. It would have taken me much longer otherwise. I totally encourage all those wishing to push for their certs to GO full speed at ahead. Regards, Jack Nalbandian, CCNA, MCSE Network Engineer DATAFLEX - U.S. Operations 310.445.1052 x275 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.telephonyexperts.com The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=5935&t=5935 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: CCIE written is outdated. [7:5756]
In addition to exposure to the "archaic material with the probability of applying" in mind, some sort of formal curriculum is required to arm someone with an upt-o-date "conceptual background" in an industry that is in flux to such a ridiculous degree. Even a seasoned "master" would need a formal refresher course once in a while. As you say, prepare for the road ahead: Get a map, an oil change, wipe the windshield, blah... Enough from me... -Original Message- From: Dennis R [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 12:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: CCIE written is outdated. [7:5756] In any well-considered educational endeavor, the program will consist of two kinds of knowledge. One kind is the obvious -- you want the students to achieve mastery. Even after the classes/training are over, and they've been away from it in their work for some time, you want them to *know* that material. For other knowledge the goal is familiarity, not mastery. Down the road, you don't necessarily expect them to remember all the details, but you do want them to recognize the material when they run into it, have a clue what it's about, know where to look for the information they need to work with it, and be confident they can use the information under those circumstances because, "They learned it once, they'll be able to refresh/deepen their knowledge when necessary and be productive." Whether by design or accident (most likely the test is just old), I think the CCIE written will help candidates achieve familiarity with a lot of material they "may well run into at some point," whereas the lab, which motivates much more studying, will help them achieve mastery of the most important topics. I'm still chewing on my CCNP, but in my job in a large NOC, we had one very large network (Fortune 50) running DEC, IS-IS and a few X.25 lines, several banking customers who used SDLC/DLSW for their ATM machines, some Appletalk, and some other odd stuff. IMHO, it's not a bad idea at all that Cisco guarantees that CCIE's have been exposed to all of this at least once. FWIW, doctorcisco >From: "Chuck Larrieu" >Reply-To: "Chuck Larrieu" >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: CCIE written is outdated. [7:5756] >Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 11:10:27 -0400 > >This of course presumes it is in Cisco's interest to make the test >"relevant". > >Reminds a bit of the arguments we used to make in college and grad school. >My major is X, so why should I be required to take classes in Y? The answer >is BECAUSE! :-> > >Right or wrong, relevant or not, the fact is that if you want the reward, >then part of the requirement is to put up with the crap. > >Chuck > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of >g_study >Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 10:19 PM >To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: CCIE written is outdated. [7:5756] > >Mr.Bad Attitude, > > I never said the lab was outdated. I have never used web based utilities >to >configure routers. All I said was the written test was outdated. They need >to update it. I didn't say make it easier. I asked why they still test us >on >outdated technologies. I would rather spend my time studying BGP then how >to >read a RIF. > >- Original Message - >From: "Louie Belt" >To: >Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 5:17 PM >Subject: RE: CCIE written is outdated. [7:5756] > > > > And a calculator can do math for you, but would you substitute your > > knowledge of math for a dependancy on a calculator? If all you want to >do > > is follow the suggestions of a sniffer, then do so. If you want to >learn > > networking then invest the time to undertand what it is the sniffer is > > telling you. I assume from your comments you would also prefer to use >the > > web based configuration utilities for switches and routers - that way >you > > don't have to know the syntax. I guess the CCIE lab is outdated as >well. > > > > Louie > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > Brian > > Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 5:30 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: CCIE written is outdated. [7:5756] > > > > > > exactly, I was just talking about this with a study partner, and the > > obsession with bits in the header is really deep here, and the canonical > > inversion stuff makes my brain hurt. I would think most packet sniffers > > would do this for you. > > > > Brian "Sonic" Whalen > > Success = Preparation + Opportunity > > > > > > On Thu, 24 May 2001, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote: > > > > > At 04:59 PM 5/24/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >But do I really need to know how to read a RIF? How often do you read >a > > RIF? > > > > > > I don't think so. That's one of the silliest topics, in my opinion. If >you > > > had to read a RIF you would use a protocol analyzer that would decode >it > > > for you. > > > > > > >I know some day you could run into
Semantics/Definitionism - BGP is what type of protocol? [7:7448]
Dear friends, I have been reading the Syngress and Cisco Press books, the RFCs related to BGP, as well as the CCO docs, but keep getting a conflicting set of answers on the following question: To what category of routing protocols does BGP belong? A. Distance vector? (CCO) B. Advanced Distance Vector? (Sybex/Lammle/Cisco Press) C. Path Vector? (Syngress/Osborne) Regards, Jack Nalbandian, CCNA, MCSE Network Engineer DATAFLEX - U.S. Operations 310.445.1052 x275 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.telephonyexperts.com The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7448&t=7448 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: why there are so many IPX traffic in my network [7:9045]
I thought IPX was layer 2 in the IPX/SPX stack. -Original Message- From: Charles Manafa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 7:25 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: why there are so many IPX traffic in my network [7:9045] IPX is layer 3 Switches operate at layer 2 CM -Original Message- From: Sim, CT (Chee Tong) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 20/06/01 08:14 Subject: RE: why there are so many IPX traffic in my network [7:9045] Thanks! I found the setting in the printer to disable the IPX. However Can we filter the IPX traffic on our 2900 IOS switches, and set based 5500 switches. IF yes.. what is the command to disable transmission of IPX traffic in the switches. -Original Message- From: Jim Dixon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 9:40 PM To: Sim, CT (Chee Tong) Subject: RE: why there are so many IPX traffic in my network [7:9045] It may be an HP JetDirect card. Get rid of it by assigning your JetDirect and or Printer an IP Address (whichever you need to do) Turn IPX off on the JetDirect Print Server. OR Filter IPX at your router and see if you can still print. Then RE_check for your IPX.. Is it still there? Did printer stop working? If so then you may want to keep IPX till you can switch to IP. -Original Message- From: Sim, CT (Chee Tong) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 8:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: why there are so many IPX traffic in my network [7:9045] Hi. I use the fluke meter and ethereal software to check the health of our network and I found there are a lot of IPX traffic in our network. But we have no Novell server here and where is the IPX traffic coming from? In the ethereal output I saw a lot of statement like source destination Protocol Info 0.0008c7280106 0.IPX SAP Nearest Query 0.0008c7280106 0.IPX SAP General Query 0.0008c7280106 0.IPX SAP General Response 0.0008c7280106 0.NBIPXFind name "our domain name" 0.0008c7280106 0.BROWSER Host Announcement "workstation name" workstation, server, print queue server, NT workstation, NT server, Potential browser. In fluke meter, I saw these IPX are mostly by printer and printer server? Why printer got something to do with IPX . How to get rid of this? Please advice Thanks -Original Message- From: jason douglas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 8:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: what about ccie-pre-qualification test in boson cisco [7: 9041] I thought it was similar. frank wrote: > > compared with 350-001,easier or much the same? > > Thanks, > > frank -- Jason Douglas Lucent World Wide Services Pager 888-451-0755 == De informatie opgenomen in dit bericht kan vertrouwelijk zijn en is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde. Indien u dit bericht onterecht ontvangt wordt u verzocht de inhoud niet te gebruiken en de afzender direct te informeren door het bericht te retourneren. == The information contained in this message may be confidential and is intended to be exclusively for the addressee. Should you receive this message unintentionally, please do not use the contents herein and notify the sender immediately by return e-mail. == == De informatie opgenomen in dit bericht kan vertrouwelijk zijn en is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde. Indien u dit bericht onterecht ontvangt wordt u verzocht de inhoud niet te gebruiken en de afzender direct te informeren door het bericht te retourneren. == The information contained in this message may be confidential and is intended to be exclusively for the addressee. Should you receive this message unintentionally, please do not use the contents herein and notify the sender immediately by return e-mail. == Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=9812&t=9045 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: dirty e-mails [7:9787]
Seems to be generated by a trojan. -Original Message- From: Robert (BOB) Perez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 7:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: dirty e-mails [7:9787] Anyone keep getting mail from ***@sexyfun.net ? I noticed that they sent [EMAIL PROTECTED] an e-mail the other day and now they are being directed to my inbox? Bob Perez EPX Network Support 302-326-0700 x4242 Cell 302-420-6883 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=9817&t=9787 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: why there are so many IPX traffic in my network [7:9045]
Correct! My mistake. -Original Message- From: Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 10:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: why there are so many IPX traffic in my network [7:9045] ipx is layer 3, spx is 4.. Bri - Original Message - From: "Jack Nalbandian" To: Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 9:57 AM Subject: RE: why there are so many IPX traffic in my network [7:9045] > I thought IPX was layer 2 in the IPX/SPX stack. > > -Original Message- > From: Charles Manafa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 7:25 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: why there are so many IPX traffic in my network [7:9045] > > > IPX is layer 3 > Switches operate at layer 2 > > CM > > -Original Message- > From: Sim, CT (Chee Tong) > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 20/06/01 08:14 > Subject: RE: why there are so many IPX traffic in my network [7:9045] > > Thanks! I found the setting in the printer to disable the IPX. However > Can > we filter the IPX traffic on our 2900 IOS switches, and set based 5500 > switches. IF yes.. what is the command to disable transmission of IPX > traffic in the switches. > > > > -Original Message- > From: Jim Dixon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 9:40 PM > To: Sim, CT (Chee Tong) > Subject: RE: why there are so many IPX traffic in my network [7:9045] > > > It may be an HP JetDirect card. > > Get rid of it by assigning your JetDirect and or Printer an IP Address > (whichever you need to do) > Turn IPX off on the JetDirect Print Server. > > OR > > Filter IPX at your router and see if you can still print. > Then > RE_check for your IPX.. Is it still there? Did printer stop working? > If so > then you may want to keep IPX till you can switch to IP. > > -Original Message- > From: Sim, CT (Chee Tong) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 8:12 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: why there are so many IPX traffic in my network [7:9045] > > > Hi. > > I use the fluke meter and ethereal software to check the health of our > network and I found there are a lot of IPX traffic in our network. But > we > have no Novell server here and where is the IPX traffic coming from? > > In the ethereal output I saw a lot of statement like > source destination Protocol Info > 0.0008c7280106 0.IPX SAP Nearest Query > 0.0008c7280106 0.IPX SAP General Query > 0.0008c7280106 0.IPX SAP General Response > 0.0008c7280106 0.NBIPXFind name "our > domain > name" > 0.0008c7280106 0.BROWSER Host Announcement > "workstation name" workstation, server, print queue server, NT > workstation, > NT server, Potential browser. > > In fluke meter, I saw these IPX are mostly by printer and printer > server? > Why printer got something to do with IPX . > > How to get rid of this? > > Please advice > Thanks > > > > -Original Message- > From: jason douglas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 8:38 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: what about ccie-pre-qualification test in boson cisco [7: > 9041] > > > I thought it was similar. > > frank wrote: > > > > compared with 350-001,easier or much the same? > > > > Thanks, > > > > frank > -- > Jason Douglas > Lucent World Wide Services > Pager 888-451-0755 > == > De informatie opgenomen in dit bericht kan vertrouwelijk zijn en > is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde. Indien u dit bericht > onterecht ontvangt wordt u verzocht de inhoud niet te gebruiken en > de afzender direct te informeren door het bericht te retourneren. > == > The information contained in this message may be confidential > and is intended to be exclusively for the addressee. Should you > receive this message unintentionally, please do not use the contents > herein and notify the sender immediately by return e-mail. > > > == > == > De informatie opgenomen in dit bericht kan vertrouwelijk zijn en > is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde. Indien u dit bericht > onterecht ontvangt wordt u verzocht de inhoud niet te gebruiken en > de afzender direct te informeren door het bericht te retourneren. >
RE: why there are so many IPX traffic in my network [7:9045]
Thank you veery much for clarifying that. Pardon my ignorance on Novell stuff, but does this mean, then, that the ODI "wrap" and IPX "share" the layer 2 functions? Also, what is the NWLINK equivalent of ARP? -Original Message- From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 11:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: why there are so many IPX traffic in my network [7:9045] IPX runs at layer 3. There's no question of that. Perhaps the confusing thing is that IPX layer-3 addresses consist of network.MAC. The node part of the address is the same as the layer-2 NIC address, also known as MAC or hardware address. This means that IPX doesn't need an ARP. If you know the Layer-3 address, you know the Layer-2 address also. Above IPX, the most common Novell protocol is NetWare Core Protocol (NCP) used by file servers. Print servers use SPX. It's a myth that NCP uses SPX. It doesn't. Priscilla At 12:57 PM 6/25/01, Jack Nalbandian wrote: >I thought IPX was layer 2 in the IPX/SPX stack. > >-Original Message- >From: Charles Manafa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 7:25 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: why there are so many IPX traffic in my network [7:9045] > > >IPX is layer 3 >Switches operate at layer 2 > >CM > >-Original Message- >From: Sim, CT (Chee Tong) >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: 20/06/01 08:14 >Subject: RE: why there are so many IPX traffic in my network [7:9045] > >Thanks! I found the setting in the printer to disable the IPX. However >Can >we filter the IPX traffic on our 2900 IOS switches, and set based 5500 >switches. IF yes.. what is the command to disable transmission of IPX >traffic in the switches. > > > >-Original Message- >From: Jim Dixon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 9:40 PM >To: Sim, CT (Chee Tong) >Subject: RE: why there are so many IPX traffic in my network [7:9045] > > >It may be an HP JetDirect card. > >Get rid of it by assigning your JetDirect and or Printer an IP Address >(whichever you need to do) >Turn IPX off on the JetDirect Print Server. > >OR > >Filter IPX at your router and see if you can still print. >Then >RE_check for your IPX.. Is it still there? Did printer stop working? >If so >then you may want to keep IPX till you can switch to IP. > >-Original Message- >From: Sim, CT (Chee Tong) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 8:12 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: why there are so many IPX traffic in my network [7:9045] > > >Hi. > >I use the fluke meter and ethereal software to check the health of our >network and I found there are a lot of IPX traffic in our network. But >we >have no Novell server here and where is the IPX traffic coming from? > >In the ethereal output I saw a lot of statement like >source destination Protocol Info >0.0008c7280106 0.IPX SAP Nearest Query >0.0008c7280106 0.IPX SAP General Query >0.0008c7280106 0.IPX SAP General Response >0.0008c7280106 0.NBIPXFind name "our >domain >name" >0.0008c7280106 0.BROWSER Host Announcement >"workstation name" workstation, server, print queue server, NT >workstation, >NT server, Potential browser. > >In fluke meter, I saw these IPX are mostly by printer and printer >server? >Why printer got something to do with IPX . > >How to get rid of this? > >Please advice >Thanks > > > >-Original Message- >From: jason douglas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 8:38 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: what about ccie-pre-qualification test in boson cisco [7: >9041] > > >I thought it was similar. > >frank wrote: > > > > compared with 350-001,easier or much the same? > > > > Thanks, > > > > frank >-- >Jason Douglas >Lucent World Wide Services >Pager 888-451-0755 >== >De informatie opgenomen in dit bericht kan vertrouwelijk zijn en >is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde. Indien u dit bericht >onterecht ontvangt wordt u verzocht de inhoud niet te gebruiken en >de afzender direct te informeren door het bericht te retourneren. >== >The information contained in this message may be confidential >and is intended to be exclusively for the addressee. Should you >receive this message unintentionally, please do not use the cont
RE: why there are so many IPX traffic in my network [7:9045]
My friend, Thank you for your assistance. I was not aware that there was a ""basics CCNA list." I will, however, not refrain from being "basic" on this list, if you permit it, of course. Thank you, -Original Message- From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 1:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: why there are so many IPX traffic in my network [7:9045] At 12:11 PM 6/25/01, Jack Nalbandian wrote: >Thank you veery much for clarifying that. > >Pardon my ignorance on Novell stuff, but does this mean, then, that the >ODI "wrap" and IPX "share" the layer 2 functions? No. IPX does layer-3 functions. ODI is just an Ethernet driver. It allows a NIC to be used to carry data for different protocols. For example, ODI allows a computer with a single NIC to be simultaneously connected to both an IPX and an IP network. So, IPX interfaces to ODI. It's a layered architecture. >Also, what is the NWLINK equivalent of ARP? NWLINK is NetBIOS running on top of IPX/SPX. It's just generic IPX. It has nothing to do with ARP which is an IP function to map IP addresses to MAC addresses. These basic questions belong on the CCNA study list, not this one. Also, find yourself a good protocol chart. Every so often someone sends around a link to one. Priscilla >-Original Message- >From: Priscilla Oppenheimer >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 11:51 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: why there are so many IPX traffic in my network [7:9045] > >IPX runs at layer 3. There's no question of that. > >Perhaps the confusing thing is that IPX layer-3 addresses consist of >network.MAC. The node part of the address is the same as the layer-2 NIC >address, also known as MAC or hardware address. > >This means that IPX doesn't need an ARP. If you know the Layer-3 address, >you know the Layer-2 address also. > >Above IPX, the most common Novell protocol is NetWare Core Protocol (NCP) >used by file servers. Print servers use SPX. It's a myth that NCP uses SPX. >It doesn't. > >Priscilla > >At 12:57 PM 6/25/01, Jack Nalbandian wrote: > >I thought IPX was layer 2 in the IPX/SPX stack. > > > >-Original Message- > >From: Charles Manafa > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 7:25 AM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: RE: why there are so many IPX traffic in my network [7:9045] > > > > > >IPX is layer 3 > >Switches operate at layer 2 > > > >CM > > > >-Original Message- > >From: Sim, CT (Chee Tong) > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: 20/06/01 08:14 > >Subject: RE: why there are so many IPX traffic in my network [7:9045] > > > >Thanks! I found the setting in the printer to disable the IPX. However > >Can > >we filter the IPX traffic on our 2900 IOS switches, and set based 5500 > >switches. IF yes.. what is the command to disable transmission of IPX > >traffic in the switches. > > > > > > > >-Original Message- > >From: Jim Dixon > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 9:40 PM > >To: Sim, CT (Chee Tong) > >Subject: RE: why there are so many IPX traffic in my network [7:9045] > > > > > >It may be an HP JetDirect card. > > > >Get rid of it by assigning your JetDirect and or Printer an IP Address > >(whichever you need to do) > >Turn IPX off on the JetDirect Print Server. > > > >OR > > > >Filter IPX at your router and see if you can still print. > >Then > >RE_check for your IPX.. Is it still there? Did printer stop working? > >If so > >then you may want to keep IPX till you can switch to IP. > > > >-Original Message- > >From: Sim, CT (Chee Tong) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 8:12 AM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: why there are so many IPX traffic in my network [7:9045] > > > > > >Hi. > > > >I use the fluke meter and ethereal software to check the health of our > >network and I found there are a lot of IPX traffic in our network. But > >we > >have no Novell server here and where is the IPX traffic coming from? > > > >In the ethereal output I saw a lot of statement like > >source destination Protocol Info > >0.0008c7280106 0.IPX SAP Nearest Query > >0.0008c7280106 0.IPX SAP General Query > >0.0008c7280106 0.IPX SAP General Response > >0.0008c7280106 0.f
RE: why there are so many IPX traffic in my network [7:9045]
Hey, hey, "go to the basics list with those typos":))) -Original Message- From: Michael L. Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 3:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: why there are so many IPX traffic in my network [7:9045] Excuse me.. I meant to say "IPX does NOT have to use SPX for transport..." Sorry for the "non-type" Mike W. "Michael L. Williams" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > It seems interested to note that no one has mentioned that IPX not only > performs addressing and path determination (layer 3) but can also act as > it's own conectionless transport too (layer 4) like UDP.. IPX does HAVE > to use SPX for transport. so IPX is really a Layer3 & 4 protocol > > Mike W. > > "Priscilla Oppenheimer" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > At 12:11 PM 6/25/01, Jack Nalbandian wrote: > > > > >Thank you veery much for clarifying that. > > > > > >Pardon my ignorance on Novell stuff, but does this mean, then, that the > > >ODI "wrap" and IPX "share" the layer 2 functions? > > > > No. IPX does layer-3 functions. > > > > ODI is just an Ethernet driver. It allows a NIC to be used to carry data > > for different protocols. For example, ODI allows a computer with a single > > NIC to be simultaneously connected to both an IPX and an IP network. So, > > IPX interfaces to ODI. It's a layered architecture. > > > > >Also, what is the NWLINK equivalent of ARP? > > > > NWLINK is NetBIOS running on top of IPX/SPX. It's just generic IPX. It has > > nothing to do with ARP which is an IP function to map IP addresses to MAC > > addresses. > > > > These basic questions belong on the CCNA study list, not this one. Also, > > find yourself a good protocol chart. Every so often someone sends around a > > link to one. > > > > Priscilla > > > > > > >-Original Message- > > >From: Priscilla Oppenheimer > > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > >Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 11:51 AM > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >Subject: RE: why there are so many IPX traffic in my network [7:9045] > > > > > >IPX runs at layer 3. There's no question of that. > > > > > >Perhaps the confusing thing is that IPX layer-3 addresses consist of > > >network.MAC. The node part of the address is the same as the layer-2 NIC > > >address, also known as MAC or hardware address. > > > > > >This means that IPX doesn't need an ARP. If you know the Layer-3 address, > > >you know the Layer-2 address also. > > > > > >Above IPX, the most common Novell protocol is NetWare Core Protocol (NCP) > > >used by file servers. Print servers use SPX. It's a myth that NCP uses > SPX. > > >It doesn't. > > > > > >Priscilla > > > > > >At 12:57 PM 6/25/01, Jack Nalbandian wrote: > > > >I thought IPX was layer 2 in the IPX/SPX stack. > > > > > > > >-Original Message- > > > >From: Charles Manafa > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > >Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 7:25 AM > > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >Subject: RE: why there are so many IPX traffic in my network [7:9045] > > > > > > > > > > > >IPX is layer 3 > > > >Switches operate at layer 2 > > > > > > > >CM > > > > > > > >-Original Message- > > > >From: Sim, CT (Chee Tong) > > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >Sent: 20/06/01 08:14 > > > >Subject: RE: why there are so many IPX traffic in my network [7:9045] > > > > > > > >Thanks! I found the setting in the printer to disable the IPX. > However > > > >Can > > > >we filter the IPX traffic on our 2900 IOS switches, and set based 5500 > > > >switches. IF yes.. what is the command to disable transmission of IPX > > > >traffic in the switches. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-Original Message- > > > >From: Jim Dixon > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > >Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 9:40 PM > > > >To: Sim, CT (Chee Tong) > > > >Subject: RE: why there are so many IPX traffic in my network [7:9045] > > > > > > > > > > > >It may be an HP JetDirect card. > >
RE: POD, what is that? [7:10128]
The example company (are you referring to the Cisco Press BSCN book?) has a campus of multiple buildings, and each separate building (or dttached building to the main building) is referred to as a "pod." -Original Message- From: Ole Drews Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 11:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: POD, what is that? [7:10128] This might seem like a stupid question, but sometimes having english as my 2nd language, makes it more difficult for me to understand what the writer is trying to tell me. I am in the middle of my BSCN book, and are now seeing the word POD showing up several times. It tells me that each POD has a number of routers, and there are a certain amount of POD's. Reading the explanation at http://www.dictionary.com gave me NO answers to this one, and the closest thing I can guess my self to is that POD's are kind of departments or subnets, unless the Prince Of Darkness has been involved with Cisco networks lately :-) Thanks for any replies to this one. Ole ~~~ Ole Drews Jensen Systems Network Manager CCNA, MCSE, MCP+I RWR Enterprises, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~~~ http://www.OleDrews.com/CCNP ~~~ NEED A JOB ??? http://www.oledrews.com/job ~~~ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10133&t=10128 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: POD, what is that? [7:10128]
I know this might veer off topic: Maybe I am biased (and partly curious), mostly due to working at a company that actually did refer to its building sub-units as "pods," and subsequently its network subnets (with a scheme pretty much dictated by the company campus' physical subdivisions) as "pods," but does the Cisco HQ campus have multiple building "pods" as well? It is an actual term used in architecture. Has it perhaps slipped over into being part of Cisco's network terminology? Perhaps this preconception on my part had me thinking of the pods in the BSCN book in this manner. I did notice, perhaps I am wrong, but the individual "pods" in the Cisco book tend to have separate areas (in OSFP scenarios This might seem like a stupid question, but sometimes having english as my >2nd language, makes it more difficult for me to understand what the writer >is trying to tell me. > >I am in the middle of my BSCN book, and are now seeing the word POD showing >up several times. It tells me that each POD has a number of routers, and >there are a certain amount of POD's. > >Reading the explanation at http://www.dictionary.com gave me NO answers to >this one, and the closest thing I can guess my self to is that POD's are >kind of departments or subnets, unless the Prince Of Darkness has been >involved with Cisco networks lately :-) > >Thanks for any replies to this one. > >Ole > >~~~ > Ole Drews Jensen > Systems Network Manager > CCNA, MCSE, MCP+I > RWR Enterprises, Inc. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >~~~ > http://www.OleDrews.com/CCNP >~~~ > NEED A JOB ??? > http://www.oledrews.com/job >~~~ Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10146&t=10128 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: POD, what is that? [7:10128]
Wait, what device is the "thingie/podmaker"? Priscilla wrote: I just finished writing some information on pods in the protocol analysis world. In that case, a pod is an extra little thingie (technical term) that helps the analyzer get on the network. With full-duplex links, for example, if you don't want to break the link and put in a shared hub for attaching the analyzer, you can get a so-called pod that leaves the link at full-duplex traffic and buffers traffic before sending it to the analyzer. These pods are costly. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10148&t=10128 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: POD, what is that? [7:10128]
Is that a layer 2 or 3? -Original Message- From: Chuck Larrieu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 1:48 PM To: Jack Nalbandian; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: POD, what is that? [7:10128] it's kinda like a "doohickey" but not nearly as high end as a "thingamajiggy" HTH Chuck -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jack Nalbandian Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 1:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: POD, what is that? [7:10128] Wait, what device is the "thingie/podmaker"? Priscilla wrote: I just finished writing some information on pods in the protocol analysis world. In that case, a pod is an extra little thingie (technical term) that helps the analyzer get on the network. With full-duplex links, for example, if you don't want to break the link and put in a shared hub for attaching the analyzer, you can get a so-called pod that leaves the link at full-duplex traffic and buffers traffic before sending it to the analyzer. These pods are costly. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10168&t=10128 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Router lab [7:10157]
The "dot com" yuppy depression knocked down the stock prices and any and all lab hopes along with it here. But, generally speaking, if you work in a production/development/manufacturing environment (i.e. some place where they actually *make* things), you might want to send them an "e-learning white paper" that speaks of "IT Darwinism" and why "companies with under-trained (IT emphasis) staff will forfeit their market share to those companies with staffs that have up-to-the-minute training." You might actually scare them into beefing up their training/test lab budget, especially if you can supplement that with an article depicting a disaster scenario of a company who does not have a lab setup to train and test. (I actually managed to get a small company to spend money on a grand training scheme, because their staff did not know didly at the time, really.) If you work in a service oriented organization like a insurance company or law-firm, you might have a harder time convincing them of any test labs. You can make a trade-off by accepting either a re-imbursment deal (in writing!, always) where you first shell out at least a portion of the "startup" version of a lab, prove to them the usefulness of the deal, and then proceed with the purchase of a "full-fledged" lab, however that is defined within the given context. That, I a developer of ours was able to pull off on a Vocaltec VOIP telecom project; pretty expensive lab including 2 AS5300's, an MGX 8230, VCO/4k etc. He set up a mini/partial lab at home and proved the practicality of having one; and then expanded upon that. These are just smaple strategies I have run across. Hope I have helped. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 1:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Router lab [7:10157] Hey Gang - Anyone have any good stories or ideas on how to talk your boss into getting a router lab setup ? His theory so far is that they "could not afford me" if I were to get my CCIE. Thanks, Duncan Duncan Wallace Sr. Network Engineer CCNA CCNP 800.COM Inc. 1516 NW Thurman St Portland, OR 97209-2517 Direct: 503.944.3671 Cell: 503.969.8248 Fax: 503.943.9371 Web: http://800.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10175&t=10157 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: POD, what is that? [7:10128]
Howard? what problem is the "doohickey" trying to solve as opposed to the thing-a-ma-doogey"? (OK, I will stop if you stop, if I stop...:)) -Original Message- From: Chuck Larrieu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 2:32 PM To: Jack Nalbandian; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: POD, what is that? [7:10128] that's a Howard question! :-> -Original Message- From: Jack Nalbandian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 2:05 PM To: 'Chuck Larrieu'; Jack Nalbandian; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: POD, what is that? [7:10128] Is that a layer 2 or 3? -Original Message- From: Chuck Larrieu [ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 1:48 PM To: Jack Nalbandian; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: POD, what is that? [7:10128] it's kinda like a "doohickey" but not nearly as high end as a "thingamajiggy" HTH Chuck -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]On Behalf Of Jack Nalbandian Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 1:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: POD, what is that? [7:10128] Wait, what device is the "thingie/podmaker"? Priscilla wrote: I just finished writing some information on pods in the protocol analysis world. In that case, a pod is an extra little thingie (technical term) that helps the analyzer get on the network. With full-duplex links, for example, if you don't want to break the link and put in a shared hub for attaching the analyzer, you can get a so-called pod that leaves the link at full-duplex traffic and buffers traffic before sending it to the analyzer. These pods are costly. &i=10148&t=10128 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10176&t=10128 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OT Re: POD, what is that? [7:10128]
I B M minus one... come come... ___:) -Original Message- From: Bryan Long (Richmond VA) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 2:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: OT Re: POD, what is that? [7:10128] As long as we are on a tear here.. A piece of trivia - Does anyone know where Hal the computer from 2001 got it's name. Get right and you get the door prize. The pod bay door that is. Bryan - Original Message - From: "Allen May" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 4:35 PM Subject: Re: POD, what is that? [7:10128] > I dunno. But it makes me think of "Open the pod bay doors HAL". > > - Original Message - > From: "Jack Nalbandian" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 3:05 PM > Subject: RE: POD, what is that? [7:10128] > > > > I know this might veer off topic: > > > > Maybe I am biased (and partly curious), mostly due to working at a company > > that actually did refer to its building sub-units as "pods," and > > subsequently its network subnets (with a scheme pretty much dictated by > the > > company campus' physical subdivisions) as "pods," but does the Cisco HQ > > campus have multiple building "pods" as well? It is an actual term used > in > > architecture. Has it perhaps slipped over into being part of Cisco's > > network terminology? > > > > Perhaps this preconception on my part had me thinking of the pods in the > > BSCN book in this manner. I did notice, perhaps I am wrong, but the > > individual "pods" in the Cisco book tend to have separate areas (in OSFP > > scenarios This might seem like a stupid question, but sometimes having > > english as my > > >2nd language, makes it more difficult for me to understand what the > writer > > >is trying to tell me. > > > > > >I am in the middle of my BSCN book, and are now seeing the word POD > showing > > >up several times. It tells me that each POD has a number of routers, and > > >there are a certain amount of POD's. > > > > > >Reading the explanation at http://www.dictionary.com gave me NO answers > to > > >this one, and the closest thing I can guess my self to is that POD's are > > >kind of departments or subnets, unless the Prince Of Darkness has been > > >involved with Cisco networks lately :-) > > > > > >Thanks for any replies to this one. > > > > > >Ole > > > > > >~~~ > > > Ole Drews Jensen > > > Systems Network Manager > > > CCNA, MCSE, MCP+I > > > RWR Enterprises, Inc. > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >~~~ > > > http://www.OleDrews.com/CCNP > > >~~~ > > > NEED A JOB ??? > > > http://www.oledrews.com/job > > >~~~ > > > > > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > > http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10182&t=10128 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: POD, what is that? [7:10128]
"Your convergence time is too long, goodbye" The conversation had ended when it began. -Original Message- From: hal9001 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 3:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: POD, what is that? [7:10128] "Jack, this conversation can no longer serve any useful purpose, goodbye" Karl - Original Message - From: "Allen May" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 9:35 PM Subject: Re: POD, what is that? [7:10128] > I dunno. But it makes me think of "Open the pod bay doors HAL". > > - Original Message - > From: "Jack Nalbandian" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 3:05 PM > Subject: RE: POD, what is that? [7:10128] > > > > I know this might veer off topic: > > > > Maybe I am biased (and partly curious), mostly due to working at a company > > that actually did refer to its building sub-units as "pods," and > > subsequently its network subnets (with a scheme pretty much dictated by > the > > company campus' physical subdivisions) as "pods," but does the Cisco HQ > > campus have multiple building "pods" as well? It is an actual term used > in > > architecture. Has it perhaps slipped over into being part of Cisco's > > network terminology? > > > > Perhaps this preconception on my part had me thinking of the pods in the > > BSCN book in this manner. I did notice, perhaps I am wrong, but the > > individual "pods" in the Cisco book tend to have separate areas (in OSFP > > scenarios This might seem like a stupid question, but sometimes having > > english as my > > >2nd language, makes it more difficult for me to understand what the > writer > > >is trying to tell me. > > > > > >I am in the middle of my BSCN book, and are now seeing the word POD > showing > > >up several times. It tells me that each POD has a number of routers, and > > >there are a certain amount of POD's. > > > > > >Reading the explanation at http://www.dictionary.com gave me NO answers > to > > >this one, and the closest thing I can guess my self to is that POD's are > > >kind of departments or subnets, unless the Prince Of Darkness has been > > >involved with Cisco networks lately :-) > > > > > >Thanks for any replies to this one. > > > > > >Ole > > > > > >~~~ > > > Ole Drews Jensen > > > Systems Network Manager > > > CCNA, MCSE, MCP+I > > > RWR Enterprises, Inc. > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >~~~ > > > http://www.OleDrews.com/CCNP > > >~~~ > > > NEED A JOB ??? > > > http://www.oledrews.com/job > > >~~~ > > > > > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > > http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10190&t=10128 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: POD, what is that? [7:10128]
Actually (and seriously), The company uses the term pod to describe the "satellite building," i.e. the subdivisions within the physical layout of the campus. This then is applied in reference to the subnets that are essentially defined by those architectural/geographic divisions. Interestingly, the companies that I refer to are Parsons Engineering in Pasadena, CA and Hughes in El Segundo, CA, but pod is a commonly used term in architecture. I still think that the BSCN is referring to building pods---:) Priscilla wrote: As far as OSPF areas, I think Cisco makes a pod an area just to give the student a chance to work with a multi-area network. It has nothing to do with the real world. It is interesting that your company uses the word for subnets, physical subdivisions. Maybe other companies do too. Priscilla Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10200&t=10128 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OT Re: POD, what is that? [7:10128]
Oh, well. So much for the folklore -Original Message- From: hal9001 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 3:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT Re: POD, what is that? [7:10128] Before anyone says it IT IS NOT ONE LETTER TO THE LEFT OF IBM. The name means Heuristically programmed (in the likeness of man) ALogrithmic computer. i.e. HAL and 9000 was the series. From the HAL Corporation of Irvana Illinois. Inception date in 1997. http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic_list.html Arthur C. Clark said that the one great mistake that they made was the actual size of the machine which he now wishes had been much smaller. QUESTIONs: What was the name of the GROUND BASED SYSTEM (Computer on earth) that was simulating the mission and what was the callsign (not name) of the deepspace craft which HAL controlled and which later Comedy Sci-Fi film was this Callsign re-used. Answers please on a disenfranchised Florida voting slip to the EXXON Slush Fund, Wilderness No longer, Alaska. Karl - Original Message - From: "Jennifer Cribbs" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 11:18 PM Subject: Re: OT Re: POD, what is that? [7:10128] > I am going to guess. > > Hypercomputer using the IIDAL programming language. > > Jennifer Cribbs > > 6/27/2001 4:42:47 PM, "Bryan Long \(Richmond VA\)" wrote: > > >As long as we are on a tear here.. > >A piece of trivia - Does anyone know where Hal the computer from 2001 got > >it's name. Get right and you get the door prize. The pod bay door that is. > > > >Bryan > >- Original Message - > >From: "Allen May" > >To: > >Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 4:35 PM > >Subject: Re: POD, what is that? [7:10128] > > > > > >> I dunno. But it makes me think of "Open the pod bay doors HAL". > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> From: "Jack Nalbandian" > >> To: > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 3:05 PM > >> Subject: RE: POD, what is that? [7:10128] > >> > >> > >> > I know this might veer off topic: > >> > > >> > Maybe I am biased (and partly curious), mostly due to working at a > >company > >> > that actually did refer to its building sub-units as "pods," and > >> > subsequently its network subnets (with a scheme pretty much dictated by > >> the > >> > company campus' physical subdivisions) as "pods," but does the Cisco HQ > >> > campus have multiple building "pods" as well? It is an actual term used > >> in > >> > architecture. Has it perhaps slipped over into being part of Cisco's > >> > network terminology? > >> > > >> > Perhaps this preconception on my part had me thinking of the pods in the > >> > BSCN book in this manner. I did notice, perhaps I am wrong, but the > >> > individual "pods" in the Cisco book tend to have separate areas (in OSFP > >> > scenarios This might seem like a stupid question, but sometimes having > >> > english as my > >> > >2nd language, makes it more difficult for me to understand what the > >> writer > >> > >is trying to tell me. > >> > > > >> > >I am in the middle of my BSCN book, and are now seeing the word POD > >> showing > >> > >up several times. It tells me that each POD has a number of routers, > >and > >> > >there are a certain amount of POD's. > >> > > > >> > >Reading the explanation at http://www.dictionary.com gave me NO answers > >> to > >> > >this one, and the closest thing I can guess my self to is that POD's > >are > >> > >kind of departments or subnets, unless the Prince Of Darkness has been > >> > >involved with Cisco networks lately :-) > >> > > > >> > >Thanks for any replies to this one. > >> > > > >> > >Ole > >> > > > >> > >~~~ > >> > > Ole Drews Jensen > >> > > Systems Network Manager > >> > > CCNA, MCSE, MCP+I > >> > > RWR Enterprises, Inc. > >> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >~~~ > >> > > http://www.OleDrews.com/CCNP > >> > >~~~ > >> > > NEED A JOB ??? > >> > > http://www.oledrews.com/job > >> > >~~~ > >> > > >> > > >> > Priscilla Oppenheimer > >> > http://www.priscilla.com > Have a great day!! > Jennifer Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10203&t=10128 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Claim your Free 4-In-1 Super Pen, it's been paid for by... [7:10725]
QuestionsResponse Do you own or use any kind of PDA(Personal Digital Assistant)? yes Do you own or use a digital camera or camcorder?yes Do you own or use a Sony game console such as PS1,PS2 or Gameboy? no Do you own or use a MP3 player? no Do you own or use a DVD player? no Group Profile: Area Code: 818 Gender: Male Age Group: 31-45 Income: 40-60k This survey is intended for [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you are not the intended recipient, please fill out your email address at right. Thanks. After you selected your choices, don't forget to Links to some of our sponsors: _ _ This email is sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you believe you did not belong to our sponsors customers list, you can remove your email address from our distribution list by clicking the link below. Click here if you prefer not to receive future e-mail from us. Click here to view our permission marketing policy. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10725&t=10725 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: PASSED BCRAN! + BIG gripe [7:7794]
That's a BS (to the nth) Degree. Some managers require it! -Original Message- From: William Gragido [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 9:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: PASSED BCRAN! + BIG gripe [7:7794] That reeks of BS -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jayesh Patel Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 3:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PASSED BCRAN! + BIG gripe [7:7794] Hi Just for you info my brother passed his BCRAN 7 min with a score of 930. He passed his CIT in 5 mins at a score of 954 and Switching in 9 min a score of 870. Regards Jayesh Patel CNE,MCNE,MCP,MCP+Internet,MCSE,CCNA,CCDA,CCNP,CCDP,CCIE written,CCNP + Voice Access, CSE in Small Business,CSE in Enterprise Business and CSE for Voice Access Solutions. - Original Message - From: "hal9001" To: Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 9:49 AM Subject: Re: PASSED BCRAN! + BIG gripe [7:7794] > The Syngress Published book CCNP Remote Access Study Guide ISBN:007211908X > has an excellent section (Ch2) on ALL of the relevant Cisco Router > offerings. The IDG > > I find that its better, if you can afford it, to not stick with just one > source but go to multiple sources not only to get a balanced view but also > to find other information omitted by another publisher/author. The future > gains always (hopefully) outweigh the present costs. > > After all, all these books are just an authors/publishers interpretation of > the Exam Objectives. Its pot luck what questions you get in the exam so > best to cover ALL the bases if you can. > > Karl > - Original Message - > From: "Michael L. Williams" > To: > Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 10:23 PM > Subject: PASSED BCRAN! + BIG gripe [7:7794] > > > > Hello all.. > > > > Passed the BCRAN with an 898 today. not a bad exam. A couple of > > "vague" questions (or questions that seemed to have more than one correct > > answer but only one answer was asked for). Even took time to write some > > comments and finished in 35 minutes. > > > > One HUGE gripe: The Cisco Press book had a huge chapter on the Cisco 700. > > The Exam Cram Remote Access book had a pared down chapter on the 700 just > > highlighting the stuff you need to know for the exam (which was nice). I > > had maybe 2 or 3 questions about the 700 series. BOTH books had a single, > > small paragraph on the 1600 series tho saying it's for branch not SOHO and > > takes a WIC card. THAT'S IT! I went through all 4 quizzes in both of the > > Boson BCRAN exam 1 and 2 (over 400 questions) and I kept getting hammered > > with questions about the Cisco 1600 and what interfaces the different > models > > had (something neither book had any details about). Lucky for me I tried > to > > take note, instead of blowing it off, because I got as many if not more > > questions about "Which model of 1600 has a 56K/ISDN/Serial port" than I > did > > about the Cisco 700. I have to say that I'm disappointed that there were > so > > many questions about the 1600 series compared to the 700 series, yet the > > Cisco Press and Exam Cram book barely mentioned them I can't believe > > the Cisco Press book dedicated a very lengthy chapter to the 700 with so > few > > questions on the exam while virtually ignoring the 1600! KUDOS TO BOSON > for > > making practice exams that not only are a good simulation of the real > exams > > but also covered material that exam creators didn't even include in their > > own study book (Cisco!). I owe my 898 to Boson for hammering me with 1600 > > questions and letting me get the info I needed for the real exam while I > was > > practicing for it. > > > > Now on to Support for CCNP then CID for CCDP Woohoo! > > > > Thanks to everyone for the group.. seeing people in the group talking > > and passing exams motivates me to keep going! > > > > Mike W. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10845&t=7794 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FYI Check out the CCIE "whats new" page. [7:11128]
I don't quite know how reliable this can be as of yet. None of the CCIEs that I know of (that even some of our corporate partners have on staff) "exist" according to this tool. -Original Message- From: Chuck Larrieu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 5:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: FYI Check out the CCIE "whats new" page. [7:11128] I like the CCIE verification tool ( requires a CCO login to access ) I discovered that Bruce Caslow is not a CCIE, although Andrew Caslow is. You guys might want to check out Jeffrey Doyle. ;-> Chuck -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 3:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FYI Check out the CCIE "whats new" page. [7:11128] Hi All There are a couple of new items on the whats new page of the CCO CCIE site. Interesting... http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/625/ccie/ccie_program/whatsnew.html -- John Hardman CCNP MCSE Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=11136&t=11128 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Prolonged Batchlers Vs. CCNP ? [7:69483]
John, And I promised myself I wouldn't get drawn into the perennial debate, but here it goes. Perhaps I am not getting my principal point across, but I do not wish to devalue or overrate any piece of paper. The fact is that you cannot rate a person based on some "benchmark," unless you are a "(del monte fruit) processing" unit like a large Fortune Company 500 HR shop. The idea is that of being fair, on judging matters and people on a case by case basis, and not treat them like chiquita bananas for the packing. As an independent consultant working on term contracts, I have been turned down offers due to the competitor having the "degree," (CS degree) but I have been called back to clean my competitor's trash of a job. One had a CS degree specializing in mainframe analysis, but apparently he had no idea how to do an upgrade on a Windows domain; and the customers paid for it twice. With due respect to those who genuinely eanred their degrees (as well as those who genuinely earned their certs), the holder of the degree can also be - as is a good percentage of the time - someone who failed calculus 5 times, took between 3-4 years to "earn" his AA (going full time), stumbled through chem with a d- in his junior year, got through the basic requirements by only fullfilling the most basic requirements, jumbled through class in a disorganized and semi-conscious state, skipped the majority of lectures, paid for most of his english and sociology term papers, and then earned his "degree." He then was dumped into a company only to be discovered to be the moron that he is. I had a coworker that fit precisely this profile. He went further and got himself an MCSE, and his "study method" was that of going to the test at the minimum required increments between failures, repeatedly. In other words, he took the workstation 4.0 test 6 times until he remembered all the questions. He then skimmed by and got 10 points higher than the minimum, and VOILA!, a certified "degree holder," the "ideal package" with the "soft and hard skills" blah blah. College apparently did not give him the "soft skills" that you mention! Should we go ahead and propagate myths on "good ole' frat boys or sorority chicks" who got the "degree" through thrashing the system? Hey, there are "papers BSs as well, load of them, pushing paper, badly, all over the labor market. Lynch 'em!" Moreover, a degree and the knowledge it gives gets OUTDATED as the market shifts (as was the case with the competing consultant above), and thus the supplement - if one must measure the person with a piece of paper or "lapel pin," can only be the vendor cert. Some of the smarter recruiters and HR people that I have dealt with were FULLY aware and alert about this. They were SPECIFICALLY looking for those who had updated their vendor certs, but they mistrusted that criterion enough to throw in a hefty tech interview as well. I thank God at this point that I have the energy to avoid the two-dimensional sorts of HR departments and work independently. The hypocrisy involved, the lack of professional integrity one has to deal with when working in a half-wit "HR screened" department causes for too many brain cells to slough off. Aging should be a natural and timely process. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John A. Kilpatrick Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 12:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Prolonged Batchlers Vs. CCNP ? [7:69483] On 5/24/03 6:53 PM, in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], ""Jack Nalbandian"" wrote: > My opinion on the matter remains the same: a bachelors is > functionally overrated by the typical manager. It depends on what you think the degree says. It doesn't say "I know the Cisco CLI like the back of my hand." But to me it does say that the person knows how to follow things through, has to have some fundamental planning and time management skills, and knows how to approach problems in a creative way. The majority of certifications out there don't really focus on problem solving - and I don't mean just troubleshooting. I remember a friend of mine who was reading the Cisco BGP book and asked me about the BGP FSM. He could figure it out, but had never seen a FSM or digraph before. It's a small example, but I had a couple of classes that went in to graphing theory and wow, it was used in real life. > The CCNP or other forms of > certification ARE known to the IT managers from my experience, but the > reason that they are waning in influence is precisely due to the "paper > whatever" myth that is being perpetuated, by of all people, techies! All myths have a foundation in reality. There are PLENTY of paper CCNPs and MCSEs. The CCNA is p
RE: Prolonged Batchlers Vs. CCNP ? [7:69483]
I still seem to be unable to get across the central point. It does not matter what is more potent or more reliable than the other. The point is that neither should be either undervalued or overvalued by way of unfair propaganda and preconceptions. I have experienced that a college degree holder can also be as incompetent and moronic as a non-holder, but I DO NOT go on a crusade to ridicule college education. Nor do I discourage someone from EARNING a degree, and, in fact, I completely agree with the idea that a bachelors degree should be EARNED when it is most opportune: early in life when not bogged down by life's responsbilities. I also, on the same exact and precise token, do not discourage people to EARN a certification from the vendor relevant to their current position to update their knowledge. I happen to have gained much from Cisco's program as well as MS's due to my particular area of work: Indepedent constultant. I don't have to prove that I have "Harvard business knowledge" when the reality that I deal with dictates that I understand NETWORKING principles. It is a simple idea, and it is crucial to the welfare of each company: Judge each individual by their own merit as much as the situation allows and as the situation requires. I know companies who do this, and they are run most efficiently. Other who do not follow such principles always suffer from disgruntled employees. As to some of the points you outline (sorry I cannot get to all your points or if I have missed any): 1. Cisco's (and Microsoft's for that matter) example of who's on the Board of Directors or in management in general is irrelevant to the discussion except for the fact that they are managers, specifically managers. Those on the board or in management have proven themselves to be managers, while the CCIE's are proven technicians, network engineers. There is no "Vendor cert for management." We are, yet again, devaluing something, an orange per se, by putting it in an apple contest. Irrelevant! 2. I again, restate, restate and restate again that I DO NOT discourage, nor do I wish to unfairly discredit, discount, ridicule, nor dismiss the value of a REAL college education. I am a college graduate as well, albeit in the music field, but I see the need for vendor certs (the programs themselves, not as much the "title"). Specialization in technical areas has to be achieved and measured in some formal manner, specially in a complex field like networking. This is precisely the reason why I find it strange that a certification program is under attach with such propaganda. If you EARN a cert, truly, you will learn a lot. There is essentially little difference in result per effort invested. 3. I do not have "lofty ideals" from which I fly into bouts of fantasy. I tell reality the way I have seen it, and I can assure you that vendor certs are valued by a good number of people for what they are. College degrees have been overrated by a great many companies who hire people for technical positions, and these same companies, again, are the ones that suffer the most from lack of professionalism in their ranks. For positions of upper management (or even "middle" management), I have no argument either way, as it is totally out of bounds of this discussion. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 2:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Prolonged Batchlers Vs. CCNP ? [7:69483] Jack, I would submit the following 2 points: First off, the fact is, college is on the whole proven to be a significantly more useful indicator of success than any cert. Think of Cisco itself. You would think that if any company knew the value of the CCIE program, it would be Cisco itself. Yet of the executive management in Cisco, how many CCIE's do you find? I believe the answer is zero. Now how many of them are college graduates? Exactly. Case closed. If you don't believe, it, see for yourself: http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/tln/exec_team/ Now ask yourself why is that? If certification was really so powerful than why doesn't Chambers just fire all his executive management and replace them with all CCIE's? Are you saying Chambers is being deliberately stupid in who he chooses to manage his company? If the college degree was really so useless, then why exactly do all of Cisco's top brass seem to have one? The same is true for every other large company. Bill Gates is perhaps the most famous and successful college dropouts in the world. You would think that if anybody would know the shortcomings of the degree, it would be him. Yet, every one of their Microsoft's top management positions is filled with degree'd people (if you don't believe it, look it up yourself - http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/default.asp), and usually from the most prestigious schools in the world. Is this a coincidence? Why doesn't Gates just fire all his managers and replace them with
RE: Prolonged Batchlers Vs. CCNP ? [7:69483]
John, And I promised myself I wouldn't get drawn into the perennial debate, but here it goes. Perhaps I am not getting my principal point across, but I do not wish to devalue or overrate any piece of paper. The fact is that you cannot rate a person based on some "benchmark," unless you are a "(del monte fruit) processing" unit like a large Fortune Company 500 HR shop. The idea is that of being fair, on judging matters and people on a case by case basis, and not treat them like chiquita bananas for the packing. As an independent consultant working on term contracts, I have been turned down offers due to the competitor having the "degree," (CS degree) but I have been called back to clean my competitor's trash of a job. One had a CS degree specializing in mainframe analysis, but apparently he had no idea how to do an upgrade on a Windows domain; and the customers paid for it twice. With due respect to those who genuinely eanred their degrees (as well as those who genuinely earned their certs), the holder of the degree can also be - as is a good percentage of the time - someone who failed calculus 5 times, took between 3-4 years to "earn" his AA (going full time), stumbled through chem with a d- in his junior year, got through the basic requirements by only fullfilling the most basic requirements, jumbled through class in a disorganized and semi-conscious state, skipped the majority of lectures, paid for most of his english and sociology term papers, and then earned his "degree." He then was dumped into a company only to be discovered to be the moron that he is. I had a coworker that fit precisely this profile. He went further and got himself an MCSE, and his "study method" was that of going to the test at the minimum required increments between failures, repeatedly. In other words, he took the workstation 4.0 test 6 times until he remembered all the questions. He then skimmed by and got 10 points higher than the minimum, and VOILA!, a certified "degree holder," the "ideal package" with the "soft and hard skills" blah blah. College apparently did not give him the "soft skills" that you mention! Should we go ahead and propagate myths on "good ole' frat boys or sorority chicks" who got the "degree" through thrashing the system? Hey, there are "papers BSs as well, load of them, pushing paper, badly, all over the labor market. Lynch 'em!" Moreover, a degree and the knowledge it gives gets OUTDATED as the market shifts (as was the case with the competing consultant above), and thus the supplement - if one must measure the person with a piece of paper or "lapel pin," can only be the vendor cert. Some of the smarter recruiters and HR people that I have dealt with were FULLY aware and alert about this. They were SPECIFICALLY looking for those who had updated their vendor certs, but they mistrusted that criterion enough to throw in a hefty tech interview as well. I thank God at this point that I have the energy to avoid the two-dimensional sorts of HR departments and work independently. The hypocrisy involved, the lack of professional integrity one has to deal with when working in a half-wit "HR screened" department causes for too many brain cells to slough off. Aging should be a natural and timely process. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John A. Kilpatrick Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 12:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Prolonged Batchlers Vs. CCNP ? [7:69483] On 5/24/03 6:53 PM, in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], ""Jack Nalbandian"" wrote: > My opinion on the matter remains the same: a bachelors is > functionally overrated by the typical manager. It depends on what you think the degree says. It doesn't say "I know the Cisco CLI like the back of my hand." But to me it does say that the person knows how to follow things through, has to have some fundamental planning and time management skills, and knows how to approach problems in a creative way. The majority of certifications out there don't really focus on problem solving - and I don't mean just troubleshooting. I remember a friend of mine who was reading the Cisco BGP book and asked me about the BGP FSM. He could figure it out, but had never seen a FSM or digraph before. It's a small example, but I had a couple of classes that went in to graphing theory and wow, it was used in real life. > The CCNP or other forms of > certification ARE known to the IT managers from my experience, but the > reason that they are waning in influence is precisely due to the "paper > whatever" myth that is being perpetuated, by of all people, techies! All myths have a foundation in reality. There are PLENTY of paper CCNPs and MCSEs. The CCNA is p
RE: Prolonged Batchlers Vs. CCNP ? [7:69483]
[NRF] "Oh, believe me, I understand your central point. Trust me, you're getting across just fine." [JN] No, apparently I have been yet again unsuccessful in getting a simple point across. The onus is yet again on me. Let me explain again. [NRF] However, surely you would concede that having that business degree from Harvard would help your career. I'm an independent consultant also, and we [JN] At this point in my career, a business degree would cause me to lose every customer that I have, if I so decide to move to Boston/Cambridge and abandon administration of their networks. However, if by "career" you mean the ambition to climb some corporate ladder, then I cannot argue; but that is entire point. Is it not? [NRF] both know that it's not like the old days anymore when you could win deals merely by demonstrating technical acumen. Surely you would agree that [JN] It depends on the situation. I have found that I am not required to have "college level" marketing or formal training, experience in insurance knowledge when implementing a network for a marketing or insurance firm. I have done so, but I have mostly been given the design input while negotiating the project. [NRF] winning deals these days often times means showing a client how hiring you ultimately makes sense to him, which often times means that in addition to technical skill, it also takes an intimate understanding of business concepts like ROI, payback period, capital depreciation schedules, op-ex, and that sort of thing. [JN] This has not happened in my case, although I don't deny that any additional industry specific knowledge will be serve as an advantage. [NRF] Which gets to a point that I've been making for awhile. In the post-bubble networking industry, if all you know is network techologies, you really don't know much. The fact is, companies don't really care about the intricacies of BGP, ATM, QoS, or whatnot (they may say they care, but they don't actually care), they only care about how these things translate into money. [JN] This above statement is made under the assumption that I disagree, somehow, with a college education. If the situation requires it, if the job position actually requires the knowledge (a questionable amount most of the time) gained through a degree program, then I have no argument. [NRF] The point is this. In the late 90's, you really could live just on certs and tech knowledge. To do so now is to live dangerously, as all the unemployed CCIE's can attest to. Tech skill is not enough - people need learn how the relationship between tech skill and money. Companies will hire you (or not) based on whether they think they will make money (or not) from doing so. [JN] It is fair to ask for business or management knowledge when hiring for a management position, or a position that requires understanding of business strategies. However, you have shot the target higher in your invocation of "career objective." OK, I agree, (as I have not ever expressed disagreement) that a degree from a prestigious university is perhaps the only ticket when hopping for management position on an already fast running train like Cisco or MS. I find it objectionable when a desktop management position also somehow "requires" a degree. Go to biotech firms like Farben and Amgen, and you might find yourself short of getting a dinky "desktop" position due to "degree requirements." A practical tech cert should be enough. If the chap then wishes to advance his career and climb up the ladder, then who is arguing against his attainment of a degree? I don't recall ever saying this. Au contraire - entirely relevant. The fact is, many engineers (not all, but many) don't want to be engineers forever. I know if I'm still schlepping [JN] In their case, they should plan their "career" accordingly. [NRF] And besides, it doesn't exactly jibe with your argument above that companies who place an emphasis on degrees seem to suffer from a high number of [JN] I will not go into denial and dismiss my own experience. MS or Cisco, I have no profound knowledge of, but shops that I have been in that "judge" their employees strictly through "credentials" suffered greatly. One company went under and laid us all off for precisely this reason! [NRF] Furthermore, think about what you said above. You said that companies are run more efficiently if they judge each individual by his own merits - and I take that to mean that the company should 'de-emphasize' the importance of [JN] Absolutely. Too much emphasis on "credentials" such as a degree is a real market phenomenon. Too much dismissal of knowledge from vendor certifications is also a sadly pervasive market phenomenon. [NRF] the degree. Yet, consider the logic of this argument. If these companies are really so 'efficient', then why don't they dominate the ranks of the [JN] Au "contraire," let us reframe the question to read: "How is it that a good many of the so-called Fortune 5
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Dude, with all due respect, are you a recruiter for some college somwhere? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n rf Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 9:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151] Sigh. I knew this was going to happen. Gentlemen, this is why I posted such a long response, because I wanted you all to be honest with yourselves. I could have just said what I had to say straight-up, without any explanation, but I felt (and obviously with a lot of justification) that I needed to do a lot of explaining. Just ask yourself the question - if you had a high-number, would you want to trade it for a lower number? You know in your heart what you want, even if you don't want to admit it on this board. Answer the question and be perfectly honest with yourself. Somebody asked whether employers are asking for lower numbers. You're damn right they are. Several recruiters, headhunters, and HR people have stated that they give preference lower-number CCIE's. In fact, you may have seen this several times on the groupstudy.jobs ng. Yet I have never ever seen a recruiter saying that he gives preference a higher-number CCIE. Why is that? Why is it only one-way? I tend not to believe in coincidences - when there's smoke, there's probably fire. Somebody also asked what number CCIE I am. Well, what exactly does that have to do with anything? Because I may or may not be a low-number CCIE, that somehow affects the truth of my arguments? Either they're true or they're not. Who I am has nothing to do with it. Why the ad-hominem attacks? Why can't people debate things simply on the merits of the argument, rather than calling into question people's motives? Hell, if you want to go down the road of ad-hominem attacks, I could just as easily say that all my detractors are or will be high-number CCIE's and so therefore all their arguments should be ignored because their motives are also questionable. But I don't do that. And when did I ever compare networking to a software company? Seems like a complete non-sequitur to me. About me 'devaluing' networking - how could I really doing that? Are you saying it's my fault that networking is devalued? Seriously. I am only 1 person. How could 1 person acting alone devalue networking in any measurable way? If I really had the power to manipulate entire markets like that, I'd be a multimillionaire and I certainly wouldn't be hanging out here on this ng. I think the real fear that people have is that I am not alone - that I really am telling the truth. If networking has been devalued, it is because the free market has decided that it should be devalued, and what is the free market but many individual entities all acting in their own self-interest? Therefore if networking has been devalued, it is because many people have decided that it be so. Not just me alone. About the cpa argument - I would argue that whenever the cpa test happened to be more difficult, then it would be more prestigious. Whenever anything is more difficult, it becomes more prestigious. Is that particularly shocking? Why is a degree from MIT more prestigious than a degree from Podunk Community College? Simple - graduating from MIT is harder than graduating from PCC. I even stated that if the CCIE all of a sudden got very very difficult starting today, then anybody who passed starting today would earn more prestige. Simply put - prestige follows rigor. And Chuck, you said it yourself - "True, there are more cheaters out there, and more practice labs, and the like..." - and those kinds of things are exactly what I'm talking about. Bottom line - the CCIE is not as hard to attain today as it was in the past, whether because of cheating or more practice materials, or whatever. You also said that the test is just as difficult today as it was in the past. But it's not just the test that I'm talking about, but rather the entire CCIE procedure that I'm talking about. The tests themselves may be of equivalent difficulty, but if there are more bootcamps and whatnot today, then ultimately that means that the CCIE procedure of today is easier. Sure test A and test B might be equal in difficulty, but if people are more "bootcamp-ed" to take test B, then ultimately passing test B is easier. Again, I don't think bootcamps are necessarily wrong, but it does mean that if you want to maintain the same level of difficulty, you have to compensate for the bootcamps by making test B even harder than test A. Otherwise, you end up with a situation where people who passed test A were good, but people who passed test B may not be quite as good, but had the benefit of bootcamps. Or let me put it to you another way. Surely you would agree that companies like Princeton Review and Kaplan make the SAT's easier. The SAT's "fight back" by using relative scoring - where your scores are calculated not absolutely, but relative
RE: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328]
This constant blare of prejudicial bias in favor of "college ed" and to the definite disfavor of "certification" seems to come most intensely from your address. The undertext is always the same: "Go to college." Is there a career-oriented quasi-political interest element at play here somewhere? Do you have a vested interest in recruiting people into college programs? I am just asking speculative and rhetorical questions with the hope of shedding some light on this mysterious phenomenon of one-sided expression of "concern for the (alleged) degradation of" in this case certification programs. The CCIE itself, once dubbed the "doctorate of networking" is now under attack, and there have been numerous posts, only by NRF, dedicated to this topic. It is as though there is a one man crusade in progress here. 1. If CCIE or any other sort of education is suffering from "degradation and devaluation" due to the "oversaturation of test-related information" on the Internet, then the same argument can be made to the detriment of the University. Why else would you have entire "net anti-plagiarist policing" firms offering their services to universities to guard against "copy and paste" term papers? 2. Any such argument that attempts to "emphasize the value of college education" at the expense of the certification tracks offered by MS, Cisco, or anyone else is doomed to be subjected to equally potent counter-arguments. The sad fact is that the Internet itself, ironically, has opened the door to billions of pages of information (thus, the "info highway"), a good portion of which will have its various corrupting effects. Any insistence on the superiority of one program over the other due to some "integrity" benchmark will only yield endless cycles of worhtless arguments. I for one am still going through the pains of recertification, and I will do so joyfully (nope, without cheat sheets or "practice tests"). But, the good news is that I am also enrolling for CS degree (actually IT managment) next fall!---:) p.s. The CCIEs that I have had the privilege of working with in the field have proven themselves to be experts time and time again. They are still very valuable in the marketplace. Myths are the only thing that can taint that. As far as I have seen, judging by the failure rate among quite competent colleagues of mine, the lab is still the lab. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n rf Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 9:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] garrett allen wrote: > > you make an a priori argument that lower is better. is a lower > number > cpa better than a higher numbered one? You got me wrong. I didn't say that lower is better at all times. Read my entire post again. I said that more rigorous equates to prestige. This is why I included my example of what would happen if Cisco decided to change the CCIE exam to become extremely rigorous - then eventually people would prize "high-number" CCIE's who passed the more rigorous version. The fact is, prestige follows rigor. If something is more rigorous, then it becomes rigorous and vice versa. This is why graduating from MIT is more prestigious than graduating from Podunk Community College. But the fact is, the CCIE on the whole has probably gotten more rigorous (i.e. chopping the test from 2 days to 1, eliminating the dedicated troubleshooting section, more bootcamps/braindumps, more cheating, etc. etc.) which is why it has become less prestigious. >actually, probably the > inverse > is true as the more recent the certification the more recent > the > material covered. this is balanced against with age comes > opportunities and experiences. Unfortunately, the free market disagrees with you. The fact is, a growing number of recruiters, headhunters, and HR people are starting to give preference to lower-number CCIE's. Go check out the groupstudy.jobs forum. Yet I have never heard of any recruiter giving preference to higher-number CCIE. It's always one-way, and that's my point. > > threads like this are like discussing the maximum number of > angels > dancing on the head of a pin. i vote we kill the thread before > it > spawn. > > later. > > > > > > - Original Message - > From: n rf > Date: Thursday, June 5, 2003 5:16 pm > Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] > > > Well, there are still less than 10,000 CCIE's. So the > population > > hasn'taccelerated THAT dramatically. > > > > Having said that, I will say that the CCIE has most likely > gotten > less > > rigorous and therefore less valuable over time. I know this > is > > going to > > greatly annoy some people when I say this, but the truth is, > the > > averagequality of the later (read: high-number) CCIE's is > probably > > lower than the > > average quality of the higher (read: lower-number) CCIE's. > > > > Before any of you high-number CCIE's decides to flame me, ask > > yourself i
RE: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328]
My friend NRF (what is your name anyhow?), Others have expressed concern, true, and most of them are legitimate. You mentioned that the MCSE was thought of as a means to get "easy money" from a relatively naive market faced with the new "IT" dimension. Expressing legitimate concern by citing facts has its value, but I see that you are indeed "peddling myths," but, so far (forgive me for generalizing due to limited exposure to your thoughts) you have been very one-sided ad biased in your "concerns." The "CCIE number" thread is based on some objective opinion of ONE person, you. You have also not provided data to back your "opinion," and doubt very much that you can provide definitive data on the matter. Who are those "some people," those who (allegedly) "required lower number CCIE's" and what percentage of the global population of "HR managers" do they constitute? Do they, furthermore, qualify to judge either way? How "expertly" knowledgable are they of the CCIE certification process? How familiar are you? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n rf Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 11:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328] Jack Nalbandian wrote: > > This constant blare of prejudicial bias in favor of "college > ed" and to the > definite disfavor of "certification" seems to come most > intensely from your > address. The undertext is always the same: "Go to college." Woah, now there's something that completely came out of left field. When in any of my posts on this particular thread did I ever tell anybody to favor college over certification? I agre that in the past I have often advocated the benefits of college over certification, but not in this particular topic. And believe me, I think everybody on this board knows that I don't hold back, so if I wanted to talk about college, believe me, I would have talked about it, and done so explicitly. I've been described by many adjectives, some positive and some negative, but I don't think I've ever been described as 'subtle'. I don't believe in undertexts, I don't believe in subterfuge, and I don't believe in stealth. If something is on my mind, believe me, I'm going to say it. > > Is there a career-oriented quasi-political interest element at > play here > somewhere? Do you have a vested interest in recruiting people > into college > programs? Since you opened the door, I could very easily turn around and ask you whether you have a vested interest in cert programs? > > I am just asking speculative and rhetorical questions with the > hope of > shedding some light on this mysterious phenomenon of one-sided > expression of > "concern for the (alleged) degradation of" in this case > certification > programs. > > The CCIE itself, once dubbed the "doctorate of networking" is > now under > attack, and there have been numerous posts, only by NRF, > dedicated to this > topic. It is as though there is a one man crusade in progress > here. Only by me? Really? So nobody else has ever expressed any concerns about certs? Is that right? If I look back, I see that this whole thread was started by somebody else. I also see some rather back-handed statements about certs by people like Chuck (the road goes ever on). Howard Berkowitz is clearly no fan of certs either. > > 1. If CCIE or any other sort of education is suffering from > "degradation and > devaluation" due to the "oversaturation of test-related > information" on the > Internet, then the same argument can be made to the detriment > of the > University. Why else would you have entire "net > anti-plagiarist policing" > firms offering their services to universities to guard against > "copy and > paste" term papers? Oh you're right. But colleges have one very powerful thing going for them - the use of relative scoring, which serves as the ultimate leveling tool. Basically, there is no 'set' score that you need to get admitted to a college - you win admission by basically beating out the other candidates.So if all candidates happen to all improve due to PrincetonReview SAT prep courses or whatever, it doesn't really threaten the integrity of the program because colleges are still going to take the top candidates, whatever the term "top" happens to mean at that time. The use of relative scoring provides inherent stability to the integrity of the program. I believe that the CCIE should use something similar. But I digress... > > 2. Any such argument that attempts to "emphasize the value of &g
RE: CCNA certification [7:70400]
I think that you only need to pass one CCNP test in order to extend your CCNA status. Below is a quote from www.cisco.com "CCNA certifications are valid for three years. To recertify, pass the current certification exam or any new exam at the Professional or Cisco Qualified Specialist level bearing the prefix 642." -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mike Momb Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 6:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: CCNA certification [7:70400] To All, I have a friend who has a CCNA and its about to expire. He has three tests completed out of the four toward his CCNP. If his CCNA certification expires, can he take the final test and be a CCNP with a expired CCNA. What is Cisco's policy concerning this? Mike Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70416&t=70400 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328]
NRF, I am not here to convince you ether way. My aim was to demonstrate that myths that stem from biases based on purely subjective "data" are only damaging. Part and parcel of the discreditation exercise is the lesson that myths are easily concocted. I will no longer respond to this thread, as there have been requests for this to stop. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n rf Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 2:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328] Jack Nalbandian wrote: > > My friend NRF (what is your name anyhow?), > > Others have expressed concern, true, and most of them are > legitimate. You > mentioned that the MCSE was thought of as a means to get "easy > money" from a > relatively naive market faced with the new "IT" dimension. > > Expressing legitimate concern by citing facts has its value, > but I see that > you are indeed "peddling myths," but, so far (forgive me for > generalizing > due to limited exposure to your thoughts) you have been very > one-sided ad > biased in your "concerns." The "CCIE number" thread is based > on some > objective opinion of ONE person, you. You have also not > provided data to > back your "opinion," and doubt very much that you can provide > definitive > data on the matter. It is not one-sided at all. Again, answer the question - all other things being equal, would you prefer a lower or a higher number for yourself or not? Of course you prefer a lower number. I know I do. Pretty much everybody does. So actually, I would say that the majority is on my side. The only difference is that some people like me are willing to admit it, and others aren't. But in our hearts, we all know what the truth is. Again, if you don't believe me, go look in the mirror and ask yourself honestly would you take a lower number if Cisco offered it to you? Be honest with yourself. I think you know exactly what I'm talking about and that's about as definitive as you're ever going to get. > > Who are those "some people," those who (allegedly) "required > lower number > CCIE's" and what percentage of the global population of "HR > managers" do > they constitute? Do they, furthermore, qualify to judge either > way? How > "expertly" knowledgable are they of the CCIE certification > process? How > familiar are you? Once again with the ad-hominem attacks. Why do people insist on attacking my character and my motives rather than my actual points? First of all, I obviously don't think it's stupid that people who do hiring prefer the lower number. I think it's actually entirely logical. But fine, let's have it your way. Even if it was illogical, what does that prove? You ask how what makes these HR people qualified to judge? Simple. The mere fact that HR managers have jobs to give makes that person qualified to judge. Why? Simple - the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules. If you want a job, and they have the jobs to give, then they are the ones with the power. They are the ones who tell you what they are looking for, and if you refuse to play by their rules, then they won't give you the job, simple as that. Unfair? Maybe. But get over it. That's life. If you have your own company, then you can decide what criteria you will use to hire. But if you don't, then you have to dance to the tune of the piper. Let me put it to you another way. Surely we all know that many companies prefer that certain positions be filled by college graduates, despite the fact that those positions don't really require anything that you would learn in college. So you might then say that it's stupid that they do things this way. Yeah, but at the end of the day, so what? Since they are the ones who have the jobs, they get to decide what they want. Ranting and raving about how you think the requirement is stupid isn't going to change their minds. Do you seriously believe that you'll be able to go to these companies and use your power of persuasion to convince them that their own requirement is stupid? Of course not. You either have want they want, or you'll be passed by. The key, therefore, is if you want that job, you should get that thing that they want, even if you don't agree that it's necessary. Telling companies that you don't agree with their hiring practices doesn't help you in paying the rent. Sometimes you gotta put up with things you don't agree with in order to get something you want (like a job). That's life. You gotta be pragmatic here. I hate stopping at red lights at 3 AM when there's nobody around to crash into. But hey, if I
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
John, Perhaps your bias is based on the intrinsic value of longevity, of experience, associated with the lower number. You tell me. Another poster, Craig Columbus [EMAIL PROTECTED], pointed out market forces, to which I find no objection, however speculative it is. There is the trend of saturation of market with technicians, but the same argument, if it must, can be made against those holding the good old bachelors of engineering: e.g. those working their own ice cream stands throughout the country - if they are not yet exported to Singapore (speaking from the USA perspective). Again, NRF's stress is that of the inherent fallacy of the certification process itself, of the lack of value of the certification due to the "lack of credibility" associated with it due to, according to him, abundant over-supply of test related information. I respectfully disagree with that one-dimensional assessment, and the main objection that I make is that ALL educational programs suffer from such "abundance of digitally/Internet based information." That is a weak argument in itself to justify promoting a myth that destroys the reputation of sometimes rigorous (if accomplished honestly) certification tracks. The only "hole" in the CCIE certification that could be found, due to the lack of such "Internet based information supply" argument pertaining to the lab, is that of "numbers." One individual says "there are too many for the market, so you now have devaluation," but at least this individual does not attempt to degrade the educational and testing process of certification itself. The other individuals says "higher number CCIEs are inferior due to the easier lab," to which some experienced in taking the lab exam object vehemently. You be the judge. I think nrf is using this as a hypothetical examle to reinforce his point. He's not implying that it would be reasonable or likely. I feel that it does a good job of illustrating the point. Many people--not all, and maybe not even a majority--give more weight in their own minds to CCIEs with lower numbers. I will admit to doing this myself sometimes, and right or wrong it demonstrates a bias that many share. This bias appears to be more and more prevalent among HR people and nrf is simply pointing this out while attempting to show that many of us, if we're honest, have the same bias. John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70433&t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328]
nd) for higher skills, companies will hire the cheapest person that still meets their need. b) Prices decrease. If CCIEs are willing to work for less money (decrease price), then demand from the purchaser (companies) will increase. After all, if a CCNP individual meets the needs, but a CCIE can be hired for the same salary as the CCNP, then, in many cases, the company will hire the CCIE...thus devaluing the CCNP in the process by creating excess CCNP supply (those looking for work). Conclusion? My interpretation of the market tells me that while the technical knowledge level of the CCIE is still very high, and that the knowledge value of the individual CCIEs is still a valuable "personal" commodity, the certification has been devalued in the marketplace. Not because the program isn't rigorous or because Cisco is passing more people per year, but because outside economic factors have reduced the demand from companies, resulting in an excess of qualified labor. This devaluation may or may not be temporary, based upon future unknown events. If you're pursuing a career in networking because it brings you personal satisfaction and not because of the money, then this devaluation won't really make a difference to you one way or the other. After all, most people who become full time artists do it for the love of art...not the big salaries. If you're in networking strictly for the money, you should closely examine the trends and make your decisions accordingly. As for me, I'm somewhere in the middle. Personally, I love my job. I love networking. But I'd find a new career tomorrow if I'd be capped at $20k a year due to market pressures. Afterall, I have a family to feed. :-) At 09:03 AM 6/9/2003 +, you wrote: >Jack Nalbandian wrote: > > > > My friend NRF (what is your name anyhow?), > > > > Others have expressed concern, true, and most of them are > > legitimate. You > > mentioned that the MCSE was thought of as a means to get "easy > > money" from a > > relatively naive market faced with the new "IT" dimension. > > > > Expressing legitimate concern by citing facts has its value, > > but I see that > > you are indeed "peddling myths," but, so far (forgive me for > > generalizing > > due to limited exposure to your thoughts) you have been very > > one-sided ad > > biased in your "concerns." The "CCIE number" thread is based > > on some > > objective opinion of ONE person, you. You have also not > > provided data to > > back your "opinion," and doubt very much that you can provide > > definitive > > data on the matter. > >It is not one-sided at all. Again, answer the question - all other things >being equal, would you prefer a lower or a higher number for yourself or >not? Of course you prefer a lower number. I know I do. Pretty much >everybody does. So actually, I would say that the majority is on my side. >The only difference is that some people like me are willing to admit it, and >others aren't. But in our hearts, we all know what the truth is. Again, if >you don't believe me, go look in the mirror and ask yourself honestly would >you take a lower number if Cisco offered it to you? Be honest with >yourself. I think you know exactly what I'm talking about and that's about >as definitive as you're ever going to get. > > > > > Who are those "some people," those who (allegedly) "required > > lower number > > CCIE's" and what percentage of the global population of "HR > > managers" do > > they constitute? Do they, furthermore, qualify to judge either > > way? How > > "expertly" knowledgable are they of the CCIE certification > > process? How > > familiar are you? > >Once again with the ad-hominem attacks. Why do people insist on attacking >my character and my motives rather than my actual points? > >First of all, I obviously don't think it's stupid that people who do hiring >prefer the lower number. I think it's actually entirely logical. > >But fine, let's have it your way. Even if it was illogical, what does that >prove? You ask how what makes these HR people qualified to judge? Simple. >The mere fact that HR managers have jobs to give makes that person qualified >to judge. Why? Simple - the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the >rules. If you want a job, and they have the jobs to give, then they are the >ones with the power. They are the ones who tell you what they are looking >for, and if you refuse to play by their rules, then they won't give you the >job, simple as that. Unfair?
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
[NRF] In this thread, I have attacked what has happened to the CCIE lately. Not the CCIE in general, just what has happened to it lately. This is a [JN] Your overall approach has a pattern to it, and your response ironically reenforces the notion. The "number of CCIE" thread merely complements the entire line of reasoning that you have thus far been feeding the topic of credentials in general. Below is again a case in point. [NRF] And now to your specific points. All education does not suffer from an abundance of information, for one specific reason. Education uses relative scoring, something that I've advocated for awhile. You want to get into college, especially an elite one? You can't just present a summation of qualifications. You win admission by beating out the other guy. If the other guy raises his game, then you have to raise you game too. Top colleges therefore retains their elite status precisely because they are always admitting the very best students, whatever "best" happens to mean at that particular time. If all students all of a sudden have access to more information, it doesn't matter, because the those colleges will still skim from the top, whatever the "top" happens to be. Therefore they will always do a good job of identifying whoever the top students happen to be. Relative scoring ensures that this happens. [JN] Admissions to a college is merely a step along the cheat ladder for many, and there are many "supplemental" colleges and universities that hand out the bachelors for those who fail the first admissions hurdle. Therefore, the overall picture is as dismal as that of the cert: i.e. Bachelors holders in various fields oversupply the market and cause for unemployment of their peers. For example, there is no "national engineer graduate limit" to contend with. More, if the student has "completed" his education and testing with enough "abundance of information," then his GPA and other such qualifications are also privy to such "informational corruption." After the admission fiasco, you will once again have the typical student cram relentlessly during his college tenure, tempting him/her to once again reap the old Internet harvest of information. He will have his myriad choice of cheating, whether that is by way of hacked test answers, ready made term papers on any given subject on the net, or by way of paid for term paper writing franchises. This is an irrelevancy that is repeatedly used by your argumentation. I said it earlier: Any such generalization and "benchmarking" will be counterproductive and damaging to the process of choosing employees, particularly for our field. It is unfair, and it is stupid. [NRF] And many others who are far more experienced in taking the lab interestingly enough agree with me. [JN] Produce them. I can vouch for the fact that certs have not gotten easier in and of themselves. I can also vouch for the fact that a college degree can be obtained with much more ease than before, but that is my personal experience and bias talking. Remember, I am also a graduate in addition to holding certifications, although in completely unrelated fields. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70477&t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Recert CCNA [7:70459]
You can pass one test, only the BSCI or BCRAN test, and retain you CCNA status (for another 3 years) until you can test for the rest. You don't need to retest for the CCNA at all. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Walker, James, IS Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 10:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Recert CCNA [7:70459] Few months is enough time to get your CCNP, depending where you stand with understanding the technology and hands on. Don't waste your time with CCNA. Just my 2 cents. Jim -Original Message- From: Steve Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 11:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Recert CCNA [7:70459] Hey Gang has anyone taken the 607 test? If so what are the best books to study with? My CCNA runs out in a few months so it's back to the books. Thanks, Steve Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70485&t=70459 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328]
LOL! OK. I will only accuse you of blatant bias, if that feels better. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n rf Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328] Steve Wilson wrote: > > Thank you gents, > I have come to the conclusion that Jack and NRF is one and the > same person. > Anyone who has seen, or read, "Fight Club" will recognise the > symptoms. Any > minute now NRF will shoot himself through the mouth and end it > all. I think I really am going to go postal if people continue to accuse me of attempting to convey some hidden message using some underlying subterfuge, Morse code, esperanto, smoke-signals, interpretive dance, subliminal messages (buy CocaCola! Jennifer Lopez - come over to my place), invisible ink, Thieves' Cant, or any other form of communication besides plain English . Oh, what nrf said is this, but what he's actually secretly trying to say is something else entirely, and I know this because I have something that nobody else has - my own nrf-secret-decoder-ring. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70551&t=70328 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
[NRF] Uh, no the free market responds by giving preference to certain well-known elite colleges. Everybody knows that not every bachelor's degree is born the same. Some are far more valuable than others. Goldman Sachs will send recruiters to Harvard, but not Podunk Community College. And this is well understood - this is why parents want their kids to attend the best school they can. [JN] Yeah, but does the "college happy" HR dude (your idol) who says "bachelors required" on dinky IT jobs (e.g. desktop support tech) pay attention to that? As far as he's concerned all BSs are BSs, and they are all "superior" to non-graduates. Remember that we are talking about IT jobs, not "top mamanegent" or "top financial analyst" positions. [NRF] First of all, what "admissions fiasco"? Are you saying that because of the abundance of information that all of a sudden everybody's getting a perfect score on their SAT's? I don't see that happening. Do you? If so, please [JN] The admissions process is a fiasco, but that is another issue. Are you implying that all the certified people are "getting perfect scores" because of braindumps and bootcamps? [NRF] that all of a sudden because of the abundance of information, everybody is now a star athlete or class president, or all those other factors that help [JN] Ah, I see, we wish for a hierarchial classification of tech in the same manner a college partitions its student body: i.e. a class president or class athlete, as in "star router dude test# 652-STAR," a "position" in cert society achieved by fulfilling a number of criteria. Perhaps one such criterion is "popularity among router dudes, most elegant telnet typist, and IOS orator." [JN] all in (stale) humor--:) [NRF] And then you talk about what people do when they're in college. If students are using the Internet to cheat, then that's really a problem with cheating in general and not with information abundance. That's why schools are implementing policies to check for the very kind of cheating that you have stated - school administrators themselves are keeping tabs on websites where you can download papers and other such 'tools'. [JN] Is that so? So we shouldn't see a problem in braindumps, now, should we? Those who don't wish to cheat, don't cheat. Is that a fair assessment? So, should those who don't cheat get the chance to be evaluated fairly? [NRF] Yet the same thing applies just as equally to the certification process. [JN] I never said anything differently. [NRF] You talk about guys hacking test answers or getting ready-made term papers. Yet there have been several cases in Asia where CCIE proctors have been caught selling actual test questions on the black market. Right now, there are certain websites in China that will sell you these questions (I am obviously not going to name any of these websites here). And you talk about some people hiring term-paper franchises, yet people have engaged in the practice of hiring guys to take their CCIE test for them. [JN] Same in colleges. Fraud is part of this "fast paced life." Hey, the more "degree happy" HR dudes start knocking certs, the more corrupt the degree will be, and the more integrity the cert programs will have. Yup, it's all about "supply and demand." [NRF] The point is that cheating cuts both ways. Every single cheating method that you have mentioned in the academic world has its equivalent method in the cert world. I don't see that academic cheating is any more serious than certification cheating. So it's a wash. [JN] I agree completely. Amazing, but true! [JN] OK, chap, I was wrong about you---:) (besides the fact that people are sick of this thread. Actually, it sounds like they're have a good laugh--:)) > I said it earlier: Any > such > generalization and "benchmarking" will be counterproductive and > damaging to > the process of choosing employees, particularly for our field. > It is > unfair, and it is stupid. [NRF] Yet strangely enough, this is precisely what corporate America does. So basically you're saying that they're wrong and you're right? If so, then [JN] Yup, that is what I am saying, but they are also changing their ways. I've been looking at job requirements posted on the net, and the "degree required" is now increasingly replaced with the more complete "bachelors degree or equivalent experience and education." So, my "side" is winning the battle a bit! --:) > [NRF] And many others who are far more experienced in taking > the lab > interestingly > enough agree with me. > > [JN] Produce them. [NRF] OK. John Kaberna. Hansang Bae. Kwame Gordon. To name a few. [NRF] Who do you got? [JN] What do they say? Chuck, for one, answered in detail. I remember his description of the lab test when he first took it. >I can vouch for the fact that certs have > not gotten > easier in and of themselves. [NRF] Then ask yourself why is it that lab bootcamps are such a thriving business? Either it's because the
RE: Cisco & Third Party H323 Device [7:70568]
Yes. As long as you have the right codecs running. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kengie Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cisco & Third Party H323 Device [7:70568] Dear All, Can Cisco VoIP Box connect to third party H323 devices? For example, Cisco AS5300 -> H323 -> Clarent or Cisco AS5300 -> H323 -> Audio Code MP200 and vice versa? Just wondering since all these device working via standard H323 protocol. Many thanks. Regards, Kengie Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70571&t=70568 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70860]
Chuck, [CL] agreed, but what you are confirming is what I and NRF have stated in so many words. No, the need for skilled technologists will not disappear. But certainly fewer bodies will be required. [JN] No argument, unless another "worker's revolution" set's the clock back; but let revolutionaries worry about such bloody trifle. [CL] As my friend NRF has stateed many times, those who want to stay ahead will do so not by focusing on the requirements of the past, notr even on the requirements of today, but rather on the requirements of tomorrow. [JN] I still say that bogus "requirements" will disappear (and are being abandoned as we speak) as quickly as the bogus "HR" personnel that came with them. If the greater force of "labor/market darwinism/evolution" is inevitable, then I don't see why any sort of "failed requirement" and incompetence should escape its grips. I would wager that it doesn't matter how high on the corporate food chain you are. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70967&t=70860 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
That is anecdotal nonsense. Any major corporation in need of real techs and that has a Cisco infrastructure will certainly consider CCIEs very seriously, yes even above so-called "CS" degree holders without much experience, for technical lead positions. I can bring examples that are not merely "anecdotal." -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Zsombor Papp Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 8:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143] Based on anecdotal evidence I've seen on this list before, I can give you an excellent ball-park figure: zero. You won't get a job if you are "just" a CCIE. See also NRF's post below. My hard-earned $0.02. :) Thanks, Zsombor At 02:25 AM 6/24/2003 +, Mark W. Odette II wrote: >That being said... I think the OP would just like a general answer. > >Ball-park figures aren't lies, as so long as they are indicated as >ball-park figures. > >It's not a lie if you just simply state/indicate what the average figure >is that you've seen in your area. > >So, if someone can contribute such an answer, let them do so. I'm sure >the OP was just trying to get a general idea- Scholar or not. > >Geeesh... sometimes it amazes me how simple answers are so hard to come >by on this list. > >No offense intended NRF. > >As for myself, I don't know what the going salary/consulting rate is in >the D/FW area of Texas for a CCIE... So I can't comment on such. > >-Mark >-Original Message- >From: n rf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 7:39 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143] > >- jvd wrote: > > > > I wonder if anybody is going to have anything positive to say > > about this post? > >So basically, you want us to lie, eh? ;->. > >Seriously, CCIE salaries have been down for awhile and any honest >discussion >about salaries is going to be necessarily negative. When something's >black, >it would be a lie to call it white. > >As far as the original question, so much depends on your experience >level, >the geographical location, things like holding a degree (or not). >Strong >candidates that have lots of experience, are well educated, and are in >places can still pull nice salaries. But I'm also aware of CCIE's >applying >for positions that pay less than 30k - and not getting them. The point >is >that the CCIE by itself guarantees nothing. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71222&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
True, fairness is a must. CCIEs without much experience are rare in the field percentage-wise in comparison, as no-nothing frat boys who drank through college are aplenty. These chaps sure played good paintball, but they were not good techs. CCIEs with some experience are considered to have "college equivalent experience and training" as it pertains to technical know-how, knowledge that has proven to be crucial in the survival of a few companies that I have worked in. The companies did not care very much whether the CCIE had any "soft skills" when it came time to salvage a disaster of a network. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n rf Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 7:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143] Jack Nalbandian wrote: > > That is anecdotal nonsense. Any major corporation in need of > real techs and > that has a Cisco infrastructure will certainly consider CCIEs > very > seriously, yes even above so-called "CS" degree holders without > much > experience, for technical lead positions. I can bring examples > that are not > merely "anecdotal." At the risk of restarting a war, that's a bit unfair, don't you think? You're saying that a CCIE (with experience, although you left that part unstated) will be considered above a degree-holder without experience for a lead position. I think it's more fair to say that nobody without experience will ever be considered for a lead position, regardless of other qualifications. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71331&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
The consensus among all corporate managers that I have dealt with is that CCIEs cannot obtain their status with at least some real experience. That is the consensus. Don't shoot me for it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n rf Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 1:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143] Jack Nalbandian wrote: > > > > CCIEs with some experience are considered to have "college > equivalent > experience and training" as it pertains to technical know-how, > knowledge > that has proven to be crucial in the survival of a few > companies that I have > worked in. The companies did not care very much whether the > CCIE had any > "soft skills" when it came time to salvage a disaster of a > network. But then what are we really talking about here - is it the CCIE or is it the experience that matters? I think we both agree that a CCIE with no experience - the prototype "lab-rat"- is not one to be trusted with running a live network until and unless that lab-rat gets experience. A much more fair comparison would be the CCIE with some experience vs. the college graduate with equal experience. And I would wonder whether there really are enough network disasters around that one could really make a reliable living off them merely with strong technical skills but no soft-skills. I would contend probably not. The fact is, if nobody in the company likes you, then you either better be an absolutely awesome firefighter, or you're going to get canned. Companies these days simply don't have a lot of room anymore for guys who may be technically brilliant but socially inept. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71375&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
Oh, but I thought "corporate management can never be wrong." -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n rf Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 6:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143] Jack Nalbandian wrote: > > The consensus among all corporate managers that I have dealt > with is that > CCIEs cannot obtain their status with at least some real > experience. That > is the consensus. Don't shoot me for it. \ Those corporate managers are wrong. They may want to look up the term "lab-rat" and see how it is commonly used, especially on this ng. Also, consider this. Those people who really think that the CCIE is impossible to pass without experience should freely support (or at least have no objection to) an idea I've been pushing for awhile - namely requiring a minimum number of years of verifiable networking experience in order to be eligible to take the exam, and for which all candidates would be subject to a random background check to catch liars - similar to how some companies run background checks on their job candidates. If it's categorically true that nobody could ever pass the lab without experience, then this new requirement should not be a problem, right? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71415&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
