Re: vpn client termination on router, with split-tunnel [7:75147]
Sure You will need to be running IOS 12.2(8)T or above. ""bk"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hello all, > > I am trying to terminate a vpn tunnel on a 3640 for clients (4.x). I > have done it on a pix with split-tunnel. Can the 3640 be setup to > perform split-tunnel? > **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: > http://shop.groupstudy.com > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=75147&t=75147 -- **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Re: PIX Firewal Software Version [7:73894]
""Deepali S"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hi , > > I would suggest you to use PIX 6.2 software rather than 6.3.1 , since this > has a lot of BUGs , you can download the latest PIX software version 6.3.2 Do not even think of trying to run 6.3.2. Go ahead, try to get 6.3.2 from cco right now. Can't find it, can you? That's because it was such a disastrous release that Cisco pulled it. Instead, you should use 6.3.3 > > Let me know if you have any queries. > **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: > http://shop.groupstudy.com > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=74643&t=73894 -- **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Re: IS-IS [7:74508]
"""Chuck Whose Road is Ever Shorter""" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ""nrf"" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > The simple answer is that yes, ISIS is a possible topic for the R/S exam. > > > > The better question to ask is why? The R/S is supposed to be an > > enterprise-networking oriented exam. Those who are interested in carrier > > routing where ISIS is most commonly found should be looking at the C/S. > > Let's face it, at this time ISIS is not exactly a particularly common > > enterprise technology, so why test such an obscure enterprise protocol on > a > > supposedly enterprise-oriented test? I suppose a tenuous case could be > > made if it was surmised that ISIS was destined to expand its presence in > the > > enterprise, but honestly now, does anybody seriously think this is going > to > > happen? For example, does anybody seriously believe that in say, 10 > years, > > there is going to be more ISIS in real-world networks as a percentage of > > total usage? Especially in the enterprise? Right. So again, on a > > supposedly enterprise-oriented test, why test a technology that is rare in > > the enterprise and getting rarer every day? > > > > the answer is simple and practical. What with the one day lab and the speed > with which cheats get circulated, lab scenarios are revised much more often > than they used to. Adding IS-IS allows for more permutations to add to the > mix. Especially now that IGRP is no longer there. The proctors still need > lots of ways to screw you with redistribution. IS-IS redfistribution gives > them that in spades. ;-> Ah, so you betray the truth - it really doesn't have anything to do with making sure the exam has real-world relevance but is really just a 'game'. If obtaining more test question permutations was really the goal, I have to appeal to one of my old proposals, which to simply make the test racks different. Why does every single test rack have to be exactly the same? Why can't there be one rack that consists of all switches, and another rack that consists of all ISDN routers, and another rack consist of all routers with ATM interfaces etc. etc.? Then you would have permutations galore. For example, you can't do much testing on switch technology with only 2 switches, but string 8 of them together and you could come up with elaborate and elegant spanning-tree scenarios. You can't do a whole lot of dial scenarios with only 2 ISDN routers (one router will dial the other - big whoop), but if you have a 4 or 6 of them, your dial scenarios can be most intricate. Cisco wouldn't even need to get new hardware - they could simply rearrange the existing racks - so hardware costs are not a serious objection.Some people might say that such a test might be unfair because a person might happen to get the "switch rack" and fail but he might have passed had he gotten the "dial rack", yet the same thing happens today - for example, today you might get a version of the test that happens to ask you about technologies that you don't know well and you henceforth fail, whereas you might have passed had you gotten the version that happened to ask you about things you know very well. So I don't really see that my proposal is significantly more unfair than the situation of today. I do agree that my proposal would take test development work because Cisco would basically have to come up with a brand new set of test questions. But look at the situation right now - Cisco is constantly changing the test anyway, so they do a lot of development work anyway. And since every single real-world network topology is different, it would be highly realistic if every single test topology is different. These changes would therefore make the test more realistic and at the same time give Cisco a breeding ground for all the permutations they want (again, imagine what you could do with 1 rack of just switches, another rack of just dial-routers, etc.). Sounds pretty good, no? > > > > > > > > > > ""Chibwe, Oliver J, NEO"" wrote in message > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Yes it is live and well! if you look at the Cisco's blueprint under all > > > the routing protocols yes it is tested if I were you I would get me an > > > IS-IS book..from Amazon. COM used one...IS-IS is a very interesting > > > link-state protocol with respect to OSPF similarities and > > > differences.Believe it or not it is being used by some ISPs right > > > nowso that's another reason for Cisco to explore that market if you > > > will. > > > > > > Thank you > &g
Re: IS-IS [7:74508]
The simple answer is that yes, ISIS is a possible topic for the R/S exam. The better question to ask is why? The R/S is supposed to be an enterprise-networking oriented exam. Those who are interested in carrier routing where ISIS is most commonly found should be looking at the C/S. Let's face it, at this time ISIS is not exactly a particularly common enterprise technology, so why test such an obscure enterprise protocol on a supposedly enterprise-oriented test? I suppose a tenuous case could be made if it was surmised that ISIS was destined to expand its presence in the enterprise, but honestly now, does anybody seriously think this is going to happen? For example, does anybody seriously believe that in say, 10 years, there is going to be more ISIS in real-world networks as a percentage of total usage? Especially in the enterprise? Right. So again, on a supposedly enterprise-oriented test, why test a technology that is rare in the enterprise and getting rarer every day? ""Chibwe, Oliver J, NEO"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Yes it is live and well! if you look at the Cisco's blueprint under all > the routing protocols yes it is tested if I were you I would get me an > IS-IS book..from Amazon. COM used one...IS-IS is a very interesting > link-state protocol with respect to OSPF similarities and > differences.Believe it or not it is being used by some ISPs right > nowso that's another reason for Cisco to explore that market if you > will. > > Thank you > > Ollie > AT&T Common Backbone > 866-397-7309 Opt 1 > > > -Original Message- > From: PPC-DAT Ep-Ng-Ist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 7:55 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: IS-IS [7:74508] > > > Is IS-IS tested on the ccie lab exam? > Rgds, > Akpome. > **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: > http://shop.groupstudy.com > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: > http://shop.groupstudy.com > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: > http://shop.groupstudy.com > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=74615&t=74508 -- **Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store: http://shop.groupstudy.com FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Re: Catalyst 4506 - Which Supervisor card? [7:72156]
""Ken Diliberto"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > With the Sup IV, you could use the 4507R chassis and have the ability to > use redundant supervisors in the future. I think the switching speed of > the Sup IV is faster and you can do L3 as well. Things the Sup II can't > do. Uh, I think you're talking about the SupII, but the guy is asking about the SupII+. The SupII+ can be used redundantly and can do (basic) L3 switching. The difference between the Sup4 and the SupII+ is that the Sup4 can handle advanced routing protocols (anything beyond RIP) and has more processing power, RAM, and flash, and can therefore handle more adjacency entries, more VLANs, etc. etc. If you can get away with just using static routes and/or RIP and you're not pushing your switch very much, then you could save money by getting the SupII+. I know some guys who are using the SupII+ and they report no issues. I have a number of people report issues with the Sup4. > > >>> "Johns, John A." 07/11/03 12:14PM >>> > Wanted to get some feedback from some folks that are using either the > Sup > II+ card or the Sup IV card.. > > There is over a $3,000.00 difference in cost.. > > Anybody using the SUP II+? Any issues? > > Thanks, > John A. Johns, CCIE No. 7983, CCDP, CCNP, MCSE, MCSA, MCP+I, CCA, A+ > [snip] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72172&t=72156 -- 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]
> >Man, > > > >I never see a job post specify that certain CCIE number is prefer. I have, many times. For example, just check out the archives at groupstudy.jobs. > >Why did you even bother to ask this question in the beginning, if you think >the value of CCIE title has drop. Huh? I didn't ask anything. What are you talking about? > >I think is fair to say, after you finished it than you will know what it >take. Believe me, I know what it takes. See below. > >Please take the CCIE lab exam before you make any common on this subject. You are assuming that I have never taken the lab. What if I told you I have. So now, according to your rules, I now have the right to say anything I want, right? > >Of course the # mean a lot but the learning process was even more >important. >In fact, one consultant company just hires two new CCIE recently with 140K >salaries per year. They both study at the same school that I went. And by the same token check out all the CCIE's who haven't found a a job for a very long time. Don't believe me? Again, go to groupstudy.jobs. Or alt.certification.cisco. Or forums.cisco.com. Or any other place where CCIE's tend to congregate and you can read the stories of CCIE's desperate to find work. > > > >This studygroup is a very valuable resource to us and everybody is working >really hard to his or her dream. I will suggest that if you are scare about >the increasing number of CCIE, please leave and seeking another valuable >certification for yourself. I'm not scared about anything. I would ask whether you're scared that perhaps your high-number CCIE may not be particularly valuable. But is that my fault? Did I cause the high-number to be less valuable? I'm just saying that it is less valuable, but I did not make that happen. You don't like what I'm saying, take it up with the entity that is responsible - take it up with Cisco itself. Ask Cisco why they changed the test from 2 days to 1. Ask Cisco why they let braindumps proliferate. Ask Cisco why they got rid of the troubleshooting section of the test. Ask Cisco why they just let people come back every month and take the test over and over again until they finally pass. All these things hurt the integrity of the program. But none of them are my fault - they're Cisco's fault. Look, the facts are clear. The CCIE has declined in quality. This is why you have some recruiters giving preference to low-number CCIE's. But nobody is giving preference to high-number CCIE's. Why is that? Ask yourself why is it only "one-way"? It is inescapably because of the drop in quality of the program. But now ask yourself whose fault is that? It's certainly not my fault - I'm not responsible for keeping the quality of the program high. It's Cisco's fault. > > > >Just my 2-cent. > > >- Original Message - >From: "n rf" >To: >Sent: Thursday, June 05, 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't > > accelerated 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 average > > quality 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 >if > > you were given the opportunity to trade your number for a lower number, > > would you do it? For example, if you are CCIE #11,000 and you could >trade > > that number for CCIE #1100, would you take it? Be honest with yourself. > > I'm sure you would concede that you would. By the same token we also >know > > that no low-number CCIE would willingly trade his number for a higher >one. > > The movement is therefore all "one-way". If all CCIE's were really >"created > > equal" then nobody would really care one way or another which number >they > > had. Therefore the CCIE community realizes that all CCIE's are not >created > > equal and that intuitively that the lower number is more desirable and >the > > higher number is less desirable (otherwise, why does everybody want a >lower > > number?). Simply put, the test is not as rigorous as it was in the >past, > > which is why lower numbers are preferred. > > > > Or, I'll put it to you another way. Let's say that starting at #12,000 > > Cisco makes the test ridiculously hard, putting in all kinds of funky > > technologies, and making the pass rate less than 1% or some other >god-awful > > number. What would happen? Simple. Word would get around that the >"new" > > CCIE was super-rigorous and therefore very prestigious to pass. >Eventually, > > numbers greater than #12000 would be coveted, and everybody would want >to > > trade in their number for one greater tha
Re: CCIE voice written and lab [7:66948]
""supernet"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hi, > > I have 3 questions regarding CCIE voice: > > 1. I took beta written test today and was told that I can expect a > result in 6-8 weeks. Does it really take that long? How do they contact > me? I only provided my SSN and name before the test. Yes, it usually does take that long. They will mail you the results using whatever mailing address you used to register with Prometric/Vue. > > 2. If I go take the lab test, I know I'll get a Cisco Documentation CD. > But do I have access to Internet? No, otherwise I'm sure you can understand the kind of cheating door you're opening. For example, you might end up in an Internet chat session or be sending hotmail/yahoomail to a friend of yours. Or heck, you might just copy the test questions word-for-word and then email it to yourself. > > 3. Will they give beta lab test before regular lab test? I believe those slots are only open to a very select few, like internal employees. > > Thank you, > Yoshi Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=66956&t=66948 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE Vs. Linux engineer (not Ph.d) [7:66669]
> Linux is very difficult to learn really well. True, CCIE lab equipment is > expensive, but I think it may take less time for some people to become a > CCIE than to get the kind of facility with Linux that the Linux-guru jobs > require. I think a far bigger problem with choosing Linux as a financially stable career is something you just hit on the head right there - barriers to entry. Financially speaking, there are none. Anybody can just piece together a couple of old PC's and fire up Linux and start learning. And right now, there are literally tens of thousands of high school and college kids playing with Linux - and, I don't want to sound morbid, but they're going to be your job competition in a few years. Do you really have much to work with if you know Linux, but so does every college student graduating with a CS degree in the future (and they will)? Not to mention all those people in countries like China, India, and Russia who are short on cash but long on brains and tenacity? That therefore means that if you want to remain employable in the Linux space, you will always need to stay ahead of the Jones's, and the Jones's in this case are obsessed high-school nerds who think it's actually fun to code for 100 hours a week. Hey, if you have the brains and the tenacity to keep pace, then more power to you. Or, if you happen to like Linux (I gotta admit, it is pretty cool), then by all means. But if you're seeing Linux just as an opportunity to make money, then unless you possess Herculean fortitude, I think you'll be disappointed. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=66732&t=9 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE Vs. Linux engineer (not Ph.d) [7:66669]
""Mic shoeps"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Thank you all folks. > I don't know much about Linux. But I would like to use the analogy that > Cisco engineers are like traffic officers in major intersections in a city > and Linux (Lexus), Microsoft (Mercedes), Solaris (Saab), Visual+ (Volvo) > engineers are like thousands of drivers passing through these intersections. > As the traffic gets heavy, those intersections will get bog down and another > intersections will be build to accomodate the throughput of the traffics. > But the Lexus, Mercedes, Saab and Volvo engineers will build more bigger, > faster and powerful sofisticated cars to get the most out of the > infrastructures and elicit more customers to learn how to drive their cars. Actually, to extend your analogy, I think the real problem is that there the world built WAY too many roads than needed. This is why there is such talk of a telco capacity glut. While Internet traffic was doubling every year, providers were building out as if traffic was doubling every 100 days. Couple that with the fact that carriers have essentially almost to a man have not figured out how to make money off the Internet. For example, consider the following quotes: "...we have the spectacle of three once powerful, "next gen" carriers in total collapse: UUNet as part of the WorldCom debacle, PSINet and Genuity. Makes no mistake: these bankruptcies are not the result of an economic downturn or solely due to corruption and fraud. Rather, as we have said before many times in many of our publications: the underlying carrier business models are fundamentally flawed...we are led to a conclusion that at this time there is no sound business model for the carrier side of the Internet. The carrier industry has come to an absolute dead-end under the current set of business models," http://www.proberesearch.com/alerts/2002/ipproblems.htm "...Where one of the alternative networks (again, the Internet) isn't profitable in the present, it undermines the whole premise of convergence. Why would the market move to select a network choice that doesn't make money even for the core services it's intended to provide? " http://www.networkmagazine.com/article/NMG20020930S0011/3 > > But the trouble is that the city is not expanding or get connected with > another cities (hats off to the mayor Bush). Without getting political, I think this is more the fault of a certain Mr. bin Laden. >Seems to me that there will be > plenty of fuel and asphalt to build the road and power the cars. But the > land is limited and more cars will be build to meet the insatiable consumer > appetite. But soon the automations will catch up with the demand and the > traffic officers will standing in his post like the Maytag technician. True indeed, networks and network engineering will become ordinary. > > Worst of all, more traffic officers will become increasingly territorial to > new and old alike. They will use the terms like 'ph'd' and 'lab rat' to > boost their egos and deter others who are trying to enter into their realm. Uh, here we must part company. I think you grant far too much power to some of us 'traffic officers'. The fact is if certain designations are considered good or bad, it is not because the old-timers say so, but because the free market says so. Holders of PhD's tend to make more money and suffer from less unemployment than nonholders of PhD's (all other things being equal) not because companies enjoy paying those PhD guys more (oh please please, take our money because we want to make less profit), but because on average those PhD holders tend to be scarcer and more productive. By the same token, 'lab-rat' CCIE's (and by that I mean people who have little to no experience as compared to the average CCIE) tend to be paid less and tend to suffer from more unemployment not because companies 'enjoy' screwing them but because it is widely acknowledged that those with less experience tend to be less productive than those with more experience. Simple as that. Therefore, as far as the term 'lab-rat' is concerned, the only thing that the older traffic officers did was give the phenomenom a name - basically those guys who had little or no experience working in actual production environments but somehow got their CCIE anyway were termed 'lab-rats'. But that's just a name. To quote Shakespeare: "What's in a name?" You can change the term from 'lab-rats' to 'lab-teddy bears' or whatever you want to call it. At the end of the day, it doesn't change a thing. The fact remains that, regardless of certification or lack thereof, those with less or no experience will on average have fewer/worse job prospects than those with more experience, and that's not because the old-timers are saying so but because the free market for labor says so. It's really as simple and as complicated as that. > > Yes, I love the challenge and that's what I'm doing right now. But I'll > seriously reconside
Re: A career in MPLS..... [7:66609]
""Cisco Nuts"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Thank you so much for your enlightening reply!! > > And thank God I moved away from Novell to MS to Citrix and finally Cisco > and now onto MPLS...And thank God "it is a very specialized and small > market right now that is looking for MPLS experience"All the more > better to develop skills in MPLS as every Tom, Dick and Harry is either > just routing or switching ;- ) > > Looks like MPLS is the way to go!!! Come'on Sprint.Let's get on with > the Show :-) Well, actually, I would temper my enthusiasm. Like you said, MPLS is indeed a very small and specialized market, meaning there really aren't many jobs because there are so few implementations. True, you might reply that there are also few people who know MPLS. But almost all those MPLS are within the large carriers where if you want to be the MPLS engineer, you can't just know MPLS, you have to REALLY REALLY REALLY know it, with verifiable experience and/or published papers to boot. Carriers aren't going to snap you up just because you may have read a book or took a 1-week class. . > > >From: """" >Reply-To: """" >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: A > career in MPLS. [7:66609] >Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 04:47:44 GMT > >Ah - > MPLS. Yes there are several large carriers with MPLS >deployed or in the > process of deploying it (equant, global >crossing...). Some on their core > and some on their layer 2 networks >such as ATM (AT&T for example). > Others backed away from it but >are now looking at it since it's a huge > marketing beast that can't be >ignored (Sprint for example). > >Aside > from ISP's some large enterprises are using it for things like >MPLS > enabled VPN's. As to the market for someone that knows >MPLS - what I > have seen is it's a very specialized and small market >right now that is > looking for MPLS experience. Mostly due to it still >being relatively new > in deployments and being relatively small in the >number of deployments. > > >I do believe however after saying that - that it never hurts to have a > >wide background of skills. Imagine if you specialized in Novell and > >never moved into other areas for example. Novell is a great product >but > the market for Novell pro's dried up a lot from the good ole days. >You > would be much less marketable if you didn't also know other >things such > as Microsoft or Routing or ... > >I could go into my opinions of the > pros and cons of MPLS and where >I think it fits - but that's another > boring story for later :) > > >www.ccie4u.com > > > >On 1 Apr 2003 at > 15:47, nrf wrote: > > > ""Cisco Nuts"" wrote in message > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Hello group, How > does one feel about a career in MPLS...I mean doing MPLS > > > as part of > your core job day in and out.Is it worth it? Since our > > > network > does not use MPLS (maybe never will) inspite of being one of the > > > > Big Four Tier 1 SP's > > > > Let me guess. Do you work for Sprint? > > > > > >are there other SP's that use MPLS in their > > > backbone?? > > > > > Yeah, there are some. > > > > >I have just given myself a month or so > break from my CCIE Lab > > > Prep.(yeah!yeah! most would consider me > stupid on this) to study MPLS > > > for the CCIP and am thinking if I > should pursue this subject just like I > > > did for BGP.know it > inside out cold.and maybe consider a new > > > career/job in MPLS > (obviously along with BGP, MBGP, MCast etc...) Does > > > anyone know of > how MPLS is viewed out there? I mean, in terms of > > > implementation, > popularity and last but not the least , $$$ ??? >;->Which > > > of the > Big SP's or Enterprise networks have implemented MPLS? Has it been > > > > worth the advantages that MPLS proposes??Thank you.Sincerely,CN > > > > > The way I see it is this. MPLS is potentially powerful technology for it > > > can be used as a lingua-franca among a carrier's network and > transport >layer > > and also as a way to impose circuit-switching > discipline upon IP and > > therefore offer circuit-switching services > with a pure IP network. > > > > But MPLS is by no means a slam-dunk. > Certain carriers, most notably > > Sprint, have elected not to go down > the MPLS path because they believe the > > te
Re: A career in MPLS..... [7:66609]
""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > I wonder if Cisco's MPLS class is just dated. It takes a long time to > develop and roll out a new class, especially if there's also a Cisco Press > book, exam, instructor materials, course binder, instructor training, beta > testing, etc. Actually, I think you are actually starting to get to the heart of the matter. I strongly suspect that latency has a lot to do with what's going on. > > In the early days of MPLS, was there more emphasis on LDP than on RSVP-TE? LDP (RFC3036) was standardized before the RSVP-TE extensions (RFC3209). More to the point, LDP is really an outgrowth of TDP, which was the basis for Cisco's old-school tag-switching. Therefore it is indeed true that LDP and its ancestors were around longer. Having said that, let me now say that traffic-engineering is a fundamental basis of modern MPLS implementations and one would be most remiss in dismissing its importance. > > Were MPLS L3 VPNs around before L2 VPNs? Again, yes, RFC2547 has been around for quite awhile now, despite numerous concerns about its implication of BGP scalability. L2VPN's are still in the draft stage. > > Maybe it's just a matter of "course development latency." Thanks for your > insights. I'm not faulting Cisco's educational team. They had to work with what was available at the time, and I understand that. What I'm saying is that it behooves the student to understand where the Cisco curricula is dated, and then adjust accordingly. This is similar to the BCMSN course material which also has problems with dated material. I mean, why emphasize MLS so much when all of Cisco's modern L3 switching gear uses CEF? > > Priscilla > > > nrf wrote: > > > > ""Henry D."" wrote in message > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > I don't mean to start any type of argument here, especially > > with someone > > > who obviously has more experience than I do. Yes, you've been > > > contributing to this study group many times. But also many > > times > > > your contributions are rather rethorical than practical and > > at the same > > > time you seem to draw attention to what your opinion is > > rather than to > > > give an educated and objective view backed by any type of > > real life > > > examples. > > > > First of all, given the subject matter (MPLS), it is most > > difficult to be > > giving out real-life examples. The fact is, MPLS is at this > > time not widely > > implemented, so therefore few examples abound. > > > > Second of all, it is essentially impossible for anybody to make > > a posting > > that is not necessarily colored with an opinion, particularly > > when they are > > discussing a subjective question. Questions like whether they > > should study > > MPLS or what they should do with their future are necessarily > > going to draw > > a wide range of opinions. If everybody is supposed to > > dogmatically answer > > 'yes' or 'no', then what's the point of even asking the > > question in the > > first place? The point is that subjective questions must > > necessarily elicit > > subjective answers. People are not robots. Everybody has to > > call it like > > they see it. You ask a subjective question, and people should > > be able to > > chime in with whatever they think. It's all about freedom of > > speech. > > > > Third of all, Cisconuts and I have taken the discussion > > offline, and while I > > don't want to speak for him, I would venture to say that he is > > quite happy > > with my responses. So if he's cool, then what exactly is your > > beef? > > > > Fourth of all, I resent the implication that my views are not > > educated. Be > > careful when you go around saying stuff like that. I seem to > > recall a story > > a few years ago how one particular guy harangued another guy > > about BGP, > > essentially saying that he knew nothing about how BGP really > > worked - only > > to find out later that the second guy was none other than a > > certain Tony Li, > > the father of BGP. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying > > that I'm Li or > > anywhere close to him. What I'm saying is that you should > > watch your fire. > > > > >So yes, I'm saying that some times you don't quite stick > > > to the subject at hand. I don't see how your view on Cisco's > > curricul
Re: A career in MPLS..... [7:66609]
expert just by passing the test or taking a > trainig > class, but at the same token, you can still learn a lot while achieving > those CCXX > goals. > > Anyway, I'm sure there will be a good response coming, so let me be done > with this subject. I had an early start today and I'm tired now. > > Good night ! > > > ""nrf"" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ""Henry D."" wrote in message > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Let me say up front, I don't have much experience in MPLS, I have > > > only played with it in the lab and not all that extensively either. > > > But CN is simply trying to get an idea of what to expect to go that > road. > > > > I believe that was precisely what I answered. > > > > > Is "nrf" saying not to advance in this field by studying Cisco's way of > > > emphasising MPLS ? > > > > What I said is that if you want to advance in that field, you will need > > substantially more than what Cisco wants you to know about it. Read my > post > > again. > > > > >You know, we all have our doubts, he's brave enough > > > to come to this group and ask questions. As far as L3VPN's, why not > > > concentrate > > > on that at least to start with. > > > > I never said not to learn L3VPN's. Read my post again. What I said is > that > > study of L3VPN's shouldn't be emphasized to the degree that Cisco seems to > > emphasize it. > > > > > It's still one reason to do the MPLS thing. > > > By just > > > doing that he'll need to touch on many aspects of MPLS anyway. He will > > still > > > use either LDP or RSVP, he still will use the LSP establishment, he > might > > as > > > well > > > learn the TE options available for establishment of those LSP's. He'll > > need > > > to learn > > > how to use the LSP's for pushing traffic over them. He'll learn what and > > how > > > the > > > labels get pushed/popped. Then why not study it that way. He's not > > advancing > > > his > > > MPLS skills, he might not have any yet. He's simply trying to see if he > > will > > > be able to utilize any of the skills he will have to learn to make it > > worth > > > it his while. > > > > No doubt all learning is good. Again, read my post again. I never said > > that he shouldn't learn it. What I said is that he shouldn't necessarily > > learn it "the Cisco way". > > > > > > > > Well, maybe someone else with more experience in MPLS arena and someone > > more > > > objective can give a better insight as to whether there is a demand for > > > these skills. > > > > Are you implying that I'm not objective - that I have some kind of agenda? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ""nrf"" wrote in message > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > ""Cisco Nuts"" wrote in message > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Hello group, How does one feel about a career in MPLS...I mean doing > > > MPLS > > > > > as part of your core job day in and out.Is it worth it? Since > our > > > > > network does not use MPLS (maybe never will) inspite of being one of > > the > > > > > Big Four Tier 1 SP's > > > > > > > > Let me guess. Do you work for Sprint? > > > > > > > > >are there other SP's that use MPLS in their > > > > > backbone?? > > > > > > > > Yeah, there are some. > > > > > > > > >I have just given myself a month or so break from my CCIE Lab > > > > > Prep.(yeah!yeah! most would consider me stupid on this) to study > MPLS > > > > > for the CCIP and am thinking if I should pursue this subject just > > like > > > I > > > > > did for BGP.know it inside out cold.and maybe consider a new > > > > > career/job in MPLS (obviously along with BGP, MBGP, MCast etc...) > Does > > > > > anyone know of how MPLS is viewed out there? I mean, in terms of > > > > > implementation, popularity and last but not the least , $$$ ??? > > > ;->Which > > > > > of the Big SP's or Enterprise networks have implemented MPLS? Has it > > > been > > > >
Re: A career in MPLS..... [7:66609]
""Henry D."" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Let me say up front, I don't have much experience in MPLS, I have > only played with it in the lab and not all that extensively either. > But CN is simply trying to get an idea of what to expect to go that road. I believe that was precisely what I answered. > Is "nrf" saying not to advance in this field by studying Cisco's way of > emphasising MPLS ? What I said is that if you want to advance in that field, you will need substantially more than what Cisco wants you to know about it. Read my post again. >You know, we all have our doubts, he's brave enough > to come to this group and ask questions. As far as L3VPN's, why not > concentrate > on that at least to start with. I never said not to learn L3VPN's. Read my post again. What I said is that study of L3VPN's shouldn't be emphasized to the degree that Cisco seems to emphasize it. > It's still one reason to do the MPLS thing. > By just > doing that he'll need to touch on many aspects of MPLS anyway. He will still > use either LDP or RSVP, he still will use the LSP establishment, he might as > well > learn the TE options available for establishment of those LSP's. He'll need > to learn > how to use the LSP's for pushing traffic over them. He'll learn what and how > the > labels get pushed/popped. Then why not study it that way. He's not advancing > his > MPLS skills, he might not have any yet. He's simply trying to see if he will > be able to utilize any of the skills he will have to learn to make it worth > it his while. No doubt all learning is good. Again, read my post again. I never said that he shouldn't learn it. What I said is that he shouldn't necessarily learn it "the Cisco way". > > Well, maybe someone else with more experience in MPLS arena and someone more > objective can give a better insight as to whether there is a demand for > these skills. Are you implying that I'm not objective - that I have some kind of agenda? > > > > ""nrf"" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ""Cisco Nuts"" wrote in message > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Hello group, How does one feel about a career in MPLS...I mean doing > MPLS > > > as part of your core job day in and out.Is it worth it? Since our > > > network does not use MPLS (maybe never will) inspite of being one of the > > > Big Four Tier 1 SP's > > > > Let me guess. Do you work for Sprint? > > > > >are there other SP's that use MPLS in their > > > backbone?? > > > > Yeah, there are some. > > > > >I have just given myself a month or so break from my CCIE Lab > > > Prep.(yeah!yeah! most would consider me stupid on this) to study MPLS > > > for the CCIP and am thinking if I should pursue this subject just like > I > > > did for BGP.know it inside out cold.and maybe consider a new > > > career/job in MPLS (obviously along with BGP, MBGP, MCast etc...) Does > > > anyone know of how MPLS is viewed out there? I mean, in terms of > > > implementation, popularity and last but not the least , $$$ ??? > ;->Which > > > of the Big SP's or Enterprise networks have implemented MPLS? Has it > been > > > worth the advantages that MPLS proposes??Thank you.Sincerely,CN > > > > The way I see it is this. MPLS is potentially powerful technology for it > > can be used as a lingua-franca among a carrier's network and transport > layer > > and also as a way to impose circuit-switching discipline upon IP and > > therefore offer circuit-switching services with a pure IP network. > > > > But MPLS is by no means a slam-dunk. Certain carriers, most notably > > Sprint, have elected not to go down the MPLS path because they believe the > > technology is immature (and they are correct) and also because they > believe > > that they can garner the benefits of MPLS by other means (also correct). > > The point is that while MPLS offers great potential, it also presents > > problems, so implementing it is not a no-brainer. > > > > And furthermore, I don't particularly like the way that Cisco is pushing > > MPLS, particularly in its cert program. In my opinion, I think Cisco's > cert > > programs emphasize the least useful parts of MPLS while neglecting the > more > > useful parts. For example, I don't understand why Cisco pushes LDP the > way > > it does, for LDP merely builds LSP's that correspond to the route table, &g
Re: A career in MPLS..... [7:66609]
""Cisco Nuts"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hello group, How does one feel about a career in MPLS...I mean doing MPLS > as part of your core job day in and out.Is it worth it? Since our > network does not use MPLS (maybe never will) inspite of being one of the > Big Four Tier 1 SP's Let me guess. Do you work for Sprint? >are there other SP's that use MPLS in their > backbone?? Yeah, there are some. >I have just given myself a month or so break from my CCIE Lab > Prep.(yeah!yeah! most would consider me stupid on this) to study MPLS > for the CCIP and am thinking if I should pursue this subject just like I > did for BGP.know it inside out cold.and maybe consider a new > career/job in MPLS (obviously along with BGP, MBGP, MCast etc...) Does > anyone know of how MPLS is viewed out there? I mean, in terms of > implementation, popularity and last but not the least , $$$ ??? ;->Which > of the Big SP's or Enterprise networks have implemented MPLS? Has it been > worth the advantages that MPLS proposes??Thank you.Sincerely,CN The way I see it is this. MPLS is potentially powerful technology for it can be used as a lingua-franca among a carrier's network and transport layer and also as a way to impose circuit-switching discipline upon IP and therefore offer circuit-switching services with a pure IP network. But MPLS is by no means a slam-dunk. Certain carriers, most notably Sprint, have elected not to go down the MPLS path because they believe the technology is immature (and they are correct) and also because they believe that they can garner the benefits of MPLS by other means (also correct). The point is that while MPLS offers great potential, it also presents problems, so implementing it is not a no-brainer. And furthermore, I don't particularly like the way that Cisco is pushing MPLS, particularly in its cert program. In my opinion, I think Cisco's cert programs emphasize the least useful parts of MPLS while neglecting the more useful parts. For example, I don't understand why Cisco pushes LDP the way it does, for LDP merely builds LSP's that correspond to the route table, but what's so useful about having LDP's that look like the route table? It is far more useful to build LSP's that differ from the route table, but the methods of doing that are not really covered very much (if at all) in the Cisco curricula. Also, I don't understand why Cisco places such an emphasis on L3VPN's, as if L3VPNs were the only important service that MPLS enables. L3VPN's are only one of the new services that you can enable, and in my opinion, one of the less important ones. Far more important are the L2VPN capabilities and the ability to unify IP, ATM, and optical into a single management plane.The point I'm making is that if you merely study MPLS according to the Cisco curricula, you really haven't learned much about it that's actually useful. > > > > Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=66614&t=66609 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Call Manager [7:66120]
Uh, I don't wanna be rude, but it is not really the purpose of this NG to give you free consulting advice. If you have a specific technical question that you can't solve after proper research, then by all means come here and ask it. But if you just want somebody to do your job for you, hire one of us. ""Binoy K Lonappan"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hi Gurus, > > I have a callManager in my central office. I also Have a 2620 > Router. I have a 256 kbps LL connecting to my branch office. There > I got a 3600 box with FXO module. I need to implement VoIP using > this infrastructure. What are the configurations required at both > ends. > > Thanks > Binoy > ___ > Odomos - the only mosquito protection outside 4 walls - > Click here to know more! > http://r.rediff.com/r?http://clients.rediff.com/odomos/Odomos.htm&&odomos&&w n Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=66138&t=66120 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Need help - Security Vs Communications and Services [7:65966]
""Fundas"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hi, > I am CCIE in R&S. Thinking of appearing for another track. I know > several of you have CCIE in multiple tracks > > Can you suggest me which one of Security Vs Communications and Services > is better w.r.t > > 1. Equipment needed for preparation. > 2. Ease of preparation (I am fairly new to both). > 3. Able to self preparation without depending on attending classes. > 4. More needed in the field. How about I offer you some better criteria. #1) Your personal interest I have found that the most satisfying choice is usually one that encompasses doing things that you are actually doing things you actually like. Surely by now you should have figured out that there are some things in networking that you like and others that you don't. For example, if you are truly interested in security topics, then the security CCIE might be right for you (but if that was the case, I wouldn't just stop at the Cisco network-related security topics that pertain to the security CCIE, rather I'd be zealously reading about ALL security-related topics). #2) What you actually do in your job Let's face it, it's far more meaningful to study things that are actually useful for your job. Why bother learning, say, traffic-engineering deeply unless you actually do traffic-engineering on your job? Wouldn't your time be better spent learning more about whatever it is you actually do for a living? By studying things that have to do with your job, you will get better at your job, thereby increasing your chances of promotion and/or decreasing your chances of getting laid off. And let's face it, isn't that the real goal behind all of this - to make more money and/or protect yourself from layoffs? Furthermore, it is far more efficient to study things that you are actually going to be utilizing. The fact is, if you study something and never use it, you will forget it quickly. Mental atrophy - use it or lose it. If you forget everything your learn because you never used it, then what exactly was the point of learning it in the first place? It's not like another CCIE - without the accompanying knowledge - is going to protect you from layoffs. Seems rather inefficient to me to study something that you will end up forgetting anyway. > > Any kind of help is appriciated. > > Thanks, > F Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=65966&t=65966 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PIX Questions [7:65806]
""Ben W"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > The PIX is not a router, however it does have a routing table and can > participate in a limited fashion in certain routing protocols, like RIP. I'm afraid I have to disagree. The Pix is a router. Basically, any device that will forward packets between different subnets is a router. > > To answer your 2nd question, there is no functional difference between the > IOS and PIX doing nat/pat. Its just a difference in configuration really. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=65891&t=65806 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Anyone configured nat under tunnel [7:65843]
""Ben W"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > The problem with doing standby track tunnel is quite often, the tunnel > interface doesn't go down. I had the same question awhile back when I was > configuring HSRP and i found out that the tunnel interfaces would stay up, > up, even though traffic stopped routing through it for one reason or > another. And if the interface doesn't go down, hsrp won't kick in. Which is why the HSRP 'standby track' is generally considered a poor man's routing protocol. You should consider using a real routing protocol for true redundancy. > > Something to consider in your testing of it. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=65892&t=65843 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why did Cisco do this? Off Topic [7:65834]
""The Long and Winding Road"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ""Elijah Savage"" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cisco buys Linksys. > > > > > http://www.quicken.com/investments/news/story/?story=NewsStory/BW/20030320/a > 5141_1048177983.var&p=CSCO > > > > > Note that Cisco will continue with the Linksys name and operate the company > as a separate division. > > Cisco failed miserably in the SOHO / Consumer market. But there is a LOT of > money to be made there. So Cisco did what Cisco does - go out and buy a > company that does it right. To be fair to Cisco, it is extremely hard to serve 2 distinct markets well. Cisco dominates in the enterprise/government market which demands features and integratability. Margins are high, sales are done mostly through the channel, and brand-name recognition and the 'golden halo' of the Cisco name are important. The SOHO market is different. Price is paramount, margins are low, and practically everything is done through retail. True indeed, there is good money to be made in the SOHO market. But it requires an entirely different mentality where competition is brutal and you have to construct a high-volume, low-margin business model - a far cry from the Cisco we know and love. It's the difference between operating Neiman-Marcus and Walmart. > > The advantage of operating the acquisition under its existing name, and > operating it separately is that Cisco doesn't get into the game of trying to > make their products interoperable from top to bottom. Part of their earlier > problem is customers expected seamless integration of the low end with the > high end, and Cisco couldn't make it happen. Linksys comsumer products - > wireless, DSL, cable, switches, etc are great products, especially for the > home market. Now Cisco is in the market as a player, not a wannabe. > > > > > > > -- > > "BSD is for people who love Unix - > > Linux is for people who hate Microsoft" Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=65884&t=65834 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Off Topic - CCIE Certification Junkies [7:65499]
First of all, surely you would agree that Cisco is not a dominant vendor in security products the way they are in, say, straight enterprise routing and switching. The fact of the matter is that when it comes to security, Cisco is really just one of several vendors. In no security submarket do they hold greater than 50% market share. That's my point. And not only that, but the competition within the security marketplace is fierce. You say that Cisco marketing should move away from convergence. But let's face it - Cisco has dominant market share when it comes to convergence. The same thing with wireless. Cisco is going to spend money on where it thinks it can get the greatest return on investment, and Cisco has enjoyed success in convergence and in wireless to a degree that it doesn't enjoy in security - either because the competition is fierce or because Cisco has made mistakes, or because Cisco's products aren't very good, or a combination of all three factors. If I was Cisco, I don't know if I would invest serious money in the security market either - because, again, it all comes down to a return on investment. Why duke it out with a savvy and technically superior competitor like Checkpoint when you can earn serious money in the convergence space? And I'm afraid I must take issue with the notion that there is another security cert out there of serious note. Let's look at things seriously. When it comes to hands-on security certifications that are respected and well-known, what is there? Not much. The CISSP and all the SANS stuff is not hands-on. And, as I'm sure we would all agree, paper exams are usually not worth the paper they're printed on. Original Message - From: "Will Gragido" To: "'nrf'" ; Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 7:31 PM Subject: RE: Off Topic - CCIE Certification Junkies [7:65499] Well, I think that if you look beyond the scope of mere Cisco Certifications (btw, I am not insinuating that Cisco Certs are somehow not up to par, only that they are not the only game in town), you'll find exactly that which you are speaking to NRF, especially in the world of Security. BTW, Cisco is actually a HUGE provider of security technologiestheir marketing department needs to realize this and defer some of their efforts away from Wireless and Convergence and focus a tad bit more on Security. My 2 Cents, Will Gragido CISSP CCNP CIPTSS CCDA MCP 9450 W. Bryn Mawr Ave. Suite 325 Rosemont, Il 60018 www.ins.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of nrf Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 5:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Off Topic - CCIE Certification Junkies [7:65499] ""Jim Brown"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > I would imagine the 5 CCIE mark has already been obtained. I met someone > who was working on their 5th at the end of the summer and I'm sure they > have passed by now. > > Don't forget the article in Packet about Mark Purcell. I'm not sure on > the spelling of his name, but he already had 4 and was working on his > 5th. Which is why I think there's even more reason for there to be a certification that sits above the CCIE. Instead of having all these multiple CCIE's, just enact one super-cert. I envision a lab where you might be expected to demonstrate competence in absolutely anything and everything that Cisco sells - IOS, Callmanager, ATM switches, optical, CIP cards - if Cisco sells it, it's fair game. What would be even better is if Cisco allowed a cert that was multi-vendor. Or a true security cert that tested all the common security technologies (including Checkpoint, Snort, etc.) instead of just Cisco gear - let's face it, Cisco is not a dominant vendor in security gear. For example, a true service-provider cert that tested both Cisco and Juniper. But I'm not going to hold my breath. > > -Original Message- > From: The Long and Winding Road > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 10:31 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Off Topic - CCIE Certification Junkies [7:65499] > > > With the announcement of the CCIE Voice certification ( a Good Thing, > IMHO ) > I wonder a couple of things: > > 1) who will be the first quadruple CCIE? > > 2) Does Cisco still recognize the Design, WAN, and IBM CCIE's as valid > certifications, making it possible to have more than four? > > 3) When will the CCIE become just another useless cert in the long > history > of useless networking certs? > > NRF - you out there tonight? > > > > > -- > TANSTAAFL > "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch" Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=65536&t=65499 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Off Topic - CCIE Certification Junkies [7:65499]
""Jim Brown"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > I would imagine the 5 CCIE mark has already been obtained. I met someone > who was working on their 5th at the end of the summer and I'm sure they > have passed by now. > > Don't forget the article in Packet about Mark Purcell. I'm not sure on > the spelling of his name, but he already had 4 and was working on his > 5th. Which is why I think there's even more reason for there to be a certification that sits above the CCIE. Instead of having all these multiple CCIE's, just enact one super-cert. I envision a lab where you might be expected to demonstrate competence in absolutely anything and everything that Cisco sells - IOS, Callmanager, ATM switches, optical, CIP cards - if Cisco sells it, it's fair game. What would be even better is if Cisco allowed a cert that was multi-vendor. Or a true security cert that tested all the common security technologies (including Checkpoint, Snort, etc.) instead of just Cisco gear - let's face it, Cisco is not a dominant vendor in security gear. For example, a true service-provider cert that tested both Cisco and Juniper. But I'm not going to hold my breath. > > -Original Message- > From: The Long and Winding Road > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 10:31 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Off Topic - CCIE Certification Junkies [7:65499] > > > With the announcement of the CCIE Voice certification ( a Good Thing, > IMHO ) > I wonder a couple of things: > > 1) who will be the first quadruple CCIE? > > 2) Does Cisco still recognize the Design, WAN, and IBM CCIE's as valid > certifications, making it possible to have more than four? > > 3) When will the CCIE become just another useless cert in the long > history > of useless networking certs? > > NRF - you out there tonight? > > > > > -- > TANSTAAFL > "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch" Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=65522&t=65499 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Off Topic - CCIE Certification Junkies [7:65499]
""The Long and Winding Road"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > With the announcement of the CCIE Voice certification ( a Good Thing, IMHO ) > I wonder a couple of things: > > 1) who will be the first quadruple CCIE? Well there already is one - he was profiled on the Cisco website. > > 2) Does Cisco still recognize the Design, WAN, and IBM CCIE's as valid > certifications, making it possible to have more than four? Yep, as well as the old ISPDial one too. Although I consider it somewhat cheesy because nobody else can ever get those old ones, so you would have something that nobody even has a chance of ever matching. > > 3) When will the CCIE become just another useless cert in the long history > of useless networking certs? I think Cisco should just make a brand new cert that sits on top of the CCIE. > > NRF - you out there tonight? Something on your mind? > > > > > -- > TANSTAAFL > "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch" Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=65519&t=65499 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE [7:65426]
Ah, so I see somebody is familiar with Hugh Gallagher's infamous essay. http://urbanlegends.miningco.com/library/blbyol3.htm > > > - Original Message - > From: "Juan Blanco" > To: > Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 6:34 AM > Subject: CCIE [7:65426] > > > > Team, > > I got this from a friend but I not sure if you have seen this or not but > > only someone pursuing the CCIE would laugh at it!! > > In the course of my day-to-day work, people ask me what is a CCIE? I > thought > > about this for some time. I wrote some notes. And this is what I came up > > with: > > I am a dynamic figure, often seen scaling 8 foot computer racks and > charming > > magnetic security cardswipes. I have been known to remodel SME networks on > > my lunch breaks, making them more efficient in the area of capital > > deployment, reliability and performance. I translate technobabble for > > Management, I write award-winning technical presentations and deliver them > > better than an American president announcing tax cuts. > > I can recite complete chapters of the Cisco Documentation CD, backwards > and, > > with little effort and at the same time, perform decimal to binary > > conversion for very large numbers. > > I woo women with my sensuous and godlike MIDI playing on a notebook. I can > > pilot computer trolleys up severe inclines with unflagging speed, and I > can > > rack Cisco gear faster than Arnold Schwarznegger can bench press. I am an > > expert in network diagramming tools, a veteran in web surfing, and know > the > > Cisco Web Site better than I know my own family. > > Just to keep it interesting, I occasionally tread water for three days > while > > programming Cisco practice labs. I manage time efficiently and can > complete > > a timesheet every week. In addition, I know the part number for every > Cisco > > router cable. > > Using only a Chinese AC power cord and a large glass of water, I once > > single-handedly rebuilt the network core of major co-location facility > after > > the roof fell in. I used to play games, but now it's serious. I am the > > subject of numerous urban myths and I am the creator of a few as well. > When > > I'm bored, I test fiber optic cable, calculate power loss sums on UTP and > > the minimum refraction index for 50 micron multimode fiber. I mean, what > IS > > the point of it ? > > I understand that DLSW and Source Route Translational Bridging actually > has > > a reason for existence. It's not just IBM playing a practical joke. > Really. > > I enjoy urban guerilla activities. I can build a 802.11b parabolic dish > > antennae using surplus antennae from defunct satellite companies and a > juice > > can. It has better performance than off the shelf products. I think that > > having a wind generator and solar array as power backup for my practice > lab > > is not only responsible preparation, it's environmentally friendly too. On > > Wednesdays, after work, I repair old monitors free of charge for my local > > charity. > > I know that canonical to non-canonical conversion is not about religion, > > it's about "ART." > > Microsoft geeks worldwide swoon over my original line of corduroy evening > > wear, which I don't understand -- it was supposed to be funny. I don't > > perspire. I am a private citizen, yet I receive fan mail. I have been > caller > > number ten and have won the cash jackpot. > > I can speak IPX NLSP, AppleTalk, ATM PVC, QoS, and BGP to name a few, and > > redistribute routes at will, with filtering, using non contiguous masks. I > > install IPV6 on customer sites whenever I can, just so I can play with it. > > Same for OSPF NSSA. Children trust me. > > I can hurl squishy giveaway tradeshow toys at sales personnel with > stunning > > accuracy, and ensure that the dweeb from administration gets the blame. I > > have charisma beyond normal mortals; if I didn't the boss would have sent > > the other guy to this exam. > > I once read Cisco Quality of Service, Caslow Bridges and Routers 2nd Ed, > and > > Jeff Doyles' Routing TCP/IP Vol2 in one day, and still had time to do > > practice on a Frame Relay multipoint network, using OSPF and IGRP, split > > horizon, route maps and ISDN. I know the exact location of every food item > > in the supermarket and I use a link state protocol to calculate the > shortest > > path to get there. > > I have performed several covert operations with the CIA. It was kind of > fun > > having them follow me around. I know that security and privacy is a > > phantasm-like myth created by "security companies" to extract money from > IT > > Managers who can't implement a decent security policy. But it's great fun > to > > play with. > > I sleep once a week; when I do sleep, I sleep in a chair. I know exactly > how > > much coffee my body will take to sustain me at peak function. While on > > vacation, I successfully negotiated with the hotel to fix their network in > > return for free accommodation. The laws of society do not apply to me. > > I
Re: Internet phone, is it possible? [7:65123]
> yeah, different assumptions mean different results. A couple three years ago > I was working at Well Known Clothing manufacturer in San Francisco. The > folks there were working hard to get VoIP toll bypass going between HQ and > their manufacturing plants in the far east. The number I heard was 80,000 a > month in potential savings - well worth investing a few thousand a month in > equipment and bandwidth for lease lines. I would imagine that these days, > voice over internet would be worth looking at for that kind of money. > > I still think, despite the continued cannibalization of the telco network, > the economics just does not favor telecom startups in this field. One would > hope that the telcos wake up and begin leveraging t=what they already have > in place. Too bad the regulatory environment discourages this. > You mention economics serving to deter startups. Although the regulatory environment does indeed deter the lumbering dinosaurs from investing in newer technologies, the economics also are serving to deter incumbents. Let's face it. Telco incumbents, especially the BOC's, don't exactly have a huge incentive to quickly replace something that still makes profit (TDM voice) with something that doesn't, at least, not yet (the Internet). While I don't know exactly how many telcos actually generate consistent profit from the Internet (not EBITDA, not cash-flow, not pro-forma profits, but actual bonafide GAAP profit), I don't think I'd be too far off the mark if I go with the guess of 'zero'. How exactly are telcos supposed to recapitalize their network from an old technology to a new one if the new technology doesn't generate profit? Couple that with the fact that any telco that chooses to increase capex in order to shift from TDM to packet will be punished unmercifully by WallStreet and you have the perfect recipe for paralysis. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=65282&t=65123 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Internet phone, is it possible? [7:65123]
""Vance Krier"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Actually, there's quite a few vendors already doing this. One that I found > to be quite impressive was vonage.com. They've got it figured out. I'm > actually testing out their service for long distance service at my office. > They give you an ATA186 with the service, which I've connected to an FXO > port off my CCM system and setup least cost routing for long distance > service. > > Actually, they had a deal on amazon where you purchase the ATA186 for $100 > and they give you two months of their $40 unlimited long distance service > for free. Heck, it would cost me $100 to buy an ATA186 and I get two months > of free long distance included...what a deal. > > Quality is remarkably good. It hardly ever hiccups at all, which is > surprising since our Internet connection gets hammered pretty often. > Anyway, I've been doing IP phones in production for several years and this > is by far the coolest VoIP service I personally have seen. Vonage is indeed a harbinger of the future. Voice will ultimately be relegated to just another app that runs on your network. You put a telephony signalling server/softswitch on your IP network and, lo and behold, you're a voice provider. I wonder if Cisco will come up with a way to dominate this market. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for BOC's to swap out their Class5 switches anytime soon. > > Vance > > ps. Oh yea, 1) Vonage runs SIP. 2) When I'm on the road and run my > softphone (CCM), I do notice degredation when the latency gets up to a > couple hundred msec. Doesn't get unacceptable to me until about 600 - 1000 > and then I start noticing dropouts. > > > > ""supernet"" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > A friend of mine wants to establish a business that use internet to make > > phone calls. He wants to set up PSTN gateways in some countries and sell > > IP phones to high speed customers so customers can talk to each other > > free of charge and they can call PSTN for a fee. I think net2phone.com > > has the same thing. Anyway, He has some questions that I couldn't > > answer. I appreciate if someone can help me: > > > > 1. Should he use SIP or CCM? > > 2. Is round trip delay 200-300 msec acceptable? > > > > Thanks. > > Yoshi Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=65283&t=65123 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Internet phone, is it possible? [7:65123]
""The Long and Winding Road"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ""supernet"" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > A friend of mine wants to establish a business that use internet to make > > phone calls. He wants to set up PSTN gateways in some countries and sell > > IP phones to high speed customers so customers can talk to each other > > free of charge and they can call PSTN for a fee. I think net2phone.com > > has the same thing. > > > Anyone remember Blue Kangaroo? > > Risky business model. Capital intense. High customer support costs. > > Businesses can get long distance nationwide at less than 3 cents a minute > these days. I gotta wonder if there really is enough demand to make this a > profitable business, given the thin margins. Yeah, but that's 3 cents a minute for calls in the US. International tariffs are significantly more expensive and hence offer more opportunities for arbitrage. > > ( Looking at low balance in bank account ) Obviously I know something about > making money.. :-Anyway, He has some questions that I couldn't > > answer. I appreciate if someone can help me: > > > > 1. Should he use SIP or CCM? > > 2. Is round trip delay 200-300 msec acceptable? > > > > Thanks. > > Yoshi Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=65237&t=65123 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Layer 3 MPLS VPN Questions [7:64770]
""John Neiberger"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > I'm at the early stages of considering migrating away from a > point-to-point frame relay network to a layer 3 MPLS-based private > network and I have a couple of questions based on some preliminary > verbal information. > > I was told that no router reconfiguration was required on our side but > I don't see how that's possible. Since our CE router connects the the > PE router they need to have common addressing and a common routing > protocol, which I think must be either OSPF or IS-IS. You are correct, router reconfiguration will be necessary. You will also need to somehow 'link' your route tables with your provider's tables. > > Regarding the routing protocol, it wouldn't be a big deal to change to > using one of the above but that would still be a change, right? :-) Yep > > Regarding the addressing, is it common for a customer to get a new > addressing scheme for the provider for their edge links? Or, will the > provider readdress their PE connections that interface with our network? > It makes more sense to me that the provider would make us readdress. > Does one method seem to be more common than the other? Usually it's the latter. > > Since this is a layer 3 VPN the provider's routers will have specific > information about our internal addressing, and I can hear our security > people groaning over this already. My boss might not like that idea, as > well. Has this been a security concern for anyone? Is there reason to > be concerned? Conversely, is there a good way for me to explain to my > boss and the security department why we shouldn't be concerned? It is a concern - but I doubt that it's a substantially greater risk than what you had before. Remember that in your old frame-relay setup, your provider could have been sniffing/copying your frames, including route updates that you were sending, and then figured out your addressing (along with anything else your provider wanted to know). The only difference between that situation and RFC2547 VPN's is that now they'll just see all your routes explicitly- they won't need a sniffer. So yes, I could say that it's a little less secure, but not substantially. > > I'm still awaiting more technical information from our provider, and > we're going to have a face-to-face meeting with technical people in a > couple of weeks, but I wanted to become more familiar with this > technology before they get here. > > Many thanks! > John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=64774&t=64770 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New Voice CCIE [7:64620]
""Mark W. Odette II"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > I'm ALL FOR THIS: > It's too bad that they don't do this with the C/S. If they would test > features available only on 7500's and up, that would mean that a greater > percentage of C/S candidates would be actual ISP engineers, not > lab-rats, > which would be good for the program. > > JUST SO LONG AS: the hiring manager/HR Puppet doesn't require prior > experience in "an enterprise network environment" just to get an > interview. That was EXACTLY the catch-22 I faced getting into this > industry 9 years ago. "What, no experience?!?! Then why would I want to > hire you and put you in the seat of managing my 2000 node > network?...shyaa right! You aren't touchin' this network with a 10 foot > pole!" But surely you can understand why companies do things that way. The fact is, lab environments are very different from production environments. Things that are allowed, and even encouraged in a lab environment will get you tossed on the street were you to do them in a production environment. Or let me put it to you this way. Let's say you're injured and you need some surgery. The doctor comes in and says that while he's never performed a real operation before in his life, he's really good at cutting up cadavers. Feel confident, or might you ask for another doctor? Exactly. > > OJT is not what it used to be in the 80's. You got hired for more then > the ability to pass the basic math test. You were hired because of your > aptitude proven in the interview. Then you were sent to training > classes for the first several weeks of your new job. Then you were > placed under a supervisor and mentored for a time period. > > These days, there are reasons why they put the "must be able to work > with minimal to zero supervision" in the description of the IT Job > posting. And they don't have any interest or plan in putting you > through any kind of training... > > ... so the Ol' Catch-22 returns in vogue just like the bell-bottoms. So basically you are yourself admitting that you want a guy who can hit the ground running, which puts a premium on experience. > > ... and one more thing: Am I just living in a bubble or something, cuz' > I just don't see this phenomenon of thousands of geeks like myself > scoffing up gear in their homes here in the D/FW, Texas area to take a > smack at the R/S or C/S labs ... is this geographic by nature or > something by economic demographic?? (read - is this something observed > in the California, N.Y., Illinois, or Virginia area) I don't know about the other areas, but there is a definite cooling of interest in NorCal, at least in basic R/S, which, let's face it, is turning more and more into a commodity every day. DFW is probably really bad because of the crushed telcos, and I can imagine that Virginia ain't too hot either - after all, NorVir is ISP Central, and ISP's have been slashing jobs left and right. > > -Mark > > > -Original Message- > From: nrf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 7:20 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: New Voice CCIE [7:64620] > > ""The Long and Winding Road"" wrote in > message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ""DAve Diaz"" wrote in message > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > how are you supposed to prepare for this buty all that equipment no > thanks > > > > > > > > > there would be a distinct advantage to substantial hands on > experience. > > maybe this marks the start of the trend away from the "paper" ( some > use > the > > term "lab rat" ) CCIE's of the last couple of years? > > Yeah, so maybe that's precisely the point. They don't want guys to just > get > a bunch of stuff in a home lab and -presto- another CCIE comes out > without > ever having used the gear in a production environment in his life, and > thereby cheapening the value of the cert. Perhaps they figure that if > they > require candidates to have a lot of hands-on experience with high-end > gear, > then most of the candidates will be employees of companies with large > networks, which was the precise target demographic of the CCIE in the > first > place. > > It's too bad that they don't do this with the C/S. If they would test > features available only on 7500's and up, that would mean that a greater > percentage of C/S candidates would be actual ISP engineers, not > lab-rats, > which would be good for the program. > > > > > > > > > > > &g
Re: New Voice CCIE [7:64620]
""The Long and Winding Road"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ""DAve Diaz"" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > how are you supposed to prepare for this buty all that equipment no thanks > > > > > there would be a distinct advantage to substantial hands on experience. > maybe this marks the start of the trend away from the "paper" ( some use the > term "lab rat" ) CCIE's of the last couple of years? Yeah, so maybe that's precisely the point. They don't want guys to just get a bunch of stuff in a home lab and -presto- another CCIE comes out without ever having used the gear in a production environment in his life, and thereby cheapening the value of the cert. Perhaps they figure that if they require candidates to have a lot of hands-on experience with high-end gear, then most of the candidates will be employees of companies with large networks, which was the precise target demographic of the CCIE in the first place. It's too bad that they don't do this with the C/S. If they would test features available only on 7500's and up, that would mean that a greater percentage of C/S candidates would be actual ISP engineers, not lab-rats, which would be good for the program. > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: "Maurizio Moroni" > > >Reply-To: "Maurizio Moroni" > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >Subject: New Voice CCIE [7:64620] > > >Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:12:11 GMT > > > > > >Hi Group, > > > > > >I would like to know what's your take on the new CCIE Voice Certification > > >Track > > >(http://www.cisco.com/warp/customer/625/ccie/ccie_program/whatsnew.html) > > > > > >Regards, > > >Maurizio > > _ > > MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=64677&t=64620 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IP Telephony SIP [7:64433]
My point still stands however - there are few SIP phones out there, and the ones that are being used are almost exclusively being used by the provider. And again, I think looking at SIP just for phones is beside the point. SIP has much more potential. Phones are really just a sideshow for SIP. ""Art Barrera"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sprint PCS is in development of their "Push to Talk" product for > walkie-talkie style service for their customers. SIP is being used for call > setup and other controll funtions. > > SIP is running on the handset itself and SIP proxy servers located at > Sprint's distribution centers connecting to PTT Aplications Servers. > > Although troubleshooting becomes easier due to ASCII based messages used for > negotiation (easily "read" with a sniffer), the protocol is "heavy" for CDMA > (LOTS of activity) which is used on the PCS network. Other enhancements are > being used to reduce latency with call setup and floor control during a > session that ironicly are not SIP based i.e. using the RTP stream for > control functions and some fancy buffering to improve the user experience. > > > > > - Original Message - > From: "nrf" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 9:50 PM > Subject: Re: IP Telephony SIP [7:64433] > > > > SIP servers - Sonus, Clarent (I think), Nortel, Indigo, guys like that. > > > > SIP phones used by providers - practically none. Dont' get me wrong - > there > > are SIP phones out there. But phones are not really the point of SIP. > SIP > > is a generalized control plane that extends far and beyond phones. Right > > now, SIP is mostly being exploited by mobile carriers for back-end > > interoperability. SIP is also being exploited to facilitate rich instant > > messaging (consider RFC 3428). > > > > > > ""supernet"" wrote in message > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Thanks. What SIP servers and SIP phones do service providers use? > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > > nrf > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 10:03 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: IP Telephony SIP [7:64433] > > > > > > ""supernet"" wrote in message > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Can anyone kindly enough tell me why SIP is better than CCM? What's > > > the > > > > main difference between this two? Is there any SIP in production? > > > > Thanks. Yoshi > > > > > > You shouldn't compare SIP and CCM. SIP is an industry standard, whereas > > > CCM > > > is a Cisco product. Any vendor, including Cisco, can and has > > > implemented > > > SIP. Only Cisco can 'implement' CCM (after all the first 'C' stands for > > > Cisco). > > > > > > There is a significant amount of SIP in production - almost all of it in > > > service-providers. Most of today's 3G wireless networks, for example, > > > rely > > > on SIP. > > > > > > To make things more confusing, Cisco may implement SIP within CCM soon. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=64635&t=64433 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IP Telephony SIP [7:64433]
SIP servers - Sonus, Clarent (I think), Nortel, Indigo, guys like that. SIP phones used by providers - practically none. Dont' get me wrong - there are SIP phones out there. But phones are not really the point of SIP. SIP is a generalized control plane that extends far and beyond phones. Right now, SIP is mostly being exploited by mobile carriers for back-end interoperability. SIP is also being exploited to facilitate rich instant messaging (consider RFC 3428). ""supernet"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Thanks. What SIP servers and SIP phones do service providers use? > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > nrf > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 10:03 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: IP Telephony SIP [7:64433] > > ""supernet"" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Can anyone kindly enough tell me why SIP is better than CCM? What's > the > > main difference between this two? Is there any SIP in production? > > Thanks. Yoshi > > You shouldn't compare SIP and CCM. SIP is an industry standard, whereas > CCM > is a Cisco product. Any vendor, including Cisco, can and has > implemented > SIP. Only Cisco can 'implement' CCM (after all the first 'C' stands for > Cisco). > > There is a significant amount of SIP in production - almost all of it in > service-providers. Most of today's 3G wireless networks, for example, > rely > on SIP. > > To make things more confusing, Cisco may implement SIP within CCM soon. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=64563&t=64433 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cisco Advertising [7:64561]
""Richard Burdette"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Has anyone else noticed the increase in Cisco advertising over the last week > or so? I'm seeing a TV add almost everyday. Could this be the result of > Cisco possibly having some statistics leading them to believe an increase in > IT spending is forthcoming? I hope so! Not to rain on your parade, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Even Chambers himself does not anticipate an increase in spending anytime soon. "...Chambers cautioned, however, that the third quarter would be flat to down slightly from the second quarter due to continued budgetary conservatism and limited visibility on the part of Cisco's customers. Also, Cisco's fiscal third quarter is historically the company's softest." http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/0204cisearn.html > > Richard Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=64564&t=64561 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IP Telephony SIP [7:64433]
I've never really liked books, except perhaps as introductory material. If you really really want to learn something, always go to the source. In the case of SIP - peruse RFC 3261. ""David L. Blair"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Browse thought Cisco's CVoice book or VoIP fundamentals both have sections > on SIP or goto to > Cisco's website and search for SIP. > > David > > ""nrf"" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ""supernet"" wrote in message > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Can anyone kindly enough tell me why SIP is better than CCM? What's the > > > main difference between this two? Is there any SIP in production? > > > Thanks. Yoshi > > > > You shouldn't compare SIP and CCM. SIP is an industry standard, whereas > CCM > > is a Cisco product. Any vendor, including Cisco, can and has implemented > > SIP. Only Cisco can 'implement' CCM (after all the first 'C' stands for > > Cisco). > > > > There is a significant amount of SIP in production - almost all of it in > > service-providers. Most of today's 3G wireless networks, for example, > rely > > on SIP. > > > > To make things more confusing, Cisco may implement SIP within CCM soon. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=64537&t=64433 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IP Telephony SIP [7:64433]
""supernet"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Can anyone kindly enough tell me why SIP is better than CCM? What's the > main difference between this two? Is there any SIP in production? > Thanks. Yoshi You shouldn't compare SIP and CCM. SIP is an industry standard, whereas CCM is a Cisco product. Any vendor, including Cisco, can and has implemented SIP. Only Cisco can 'implement' CCM (after all the first 'C' stands for Cisco). There is a significant amount of SIP in production - almost all of it in service-providers. Most of today's 3G wireless networks, for example, rely on SIP. To make things more confusing, Cisco may implement SIP within CCM soon. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=64440&t=64433 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE Security Lab [7:17848]
Again, I'm not saying that interconnections with an IP wholesaler would have solved the whole problem. Clearly when voice/data customer circuits all ride to the same CO which is destroyed, then you are going to have some lost connectivity no matter how you bake it. What I'm saying is that not only was a lot of endpoint customer connections lost, but a lot of backend callrouting capabilities as well. In addition to restoring customer connections, Verizon also had to rebuild backend callrouting capabilities - and it is this specific area that could have been helped with an IP wholesaler. In that sense, things could have been restored faster because that would have meant that Verizon would have had to spend less time restoring backend callrouting and therefore would have had more resources to restoring endpoint customers. ""Geoff Kuchera"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Actually from my point of view I was talking about private data > circuits. The company I used to work for provided customers with credit > card processing. We ahd a customer in Manhatten that for months after > 9-11 got dropped on there butts because Verison was cleaning up there > switches (data circuits). Also Verison decided that even though this > particular customer was supposed to have redundant circuits through two > different CO's that they were going to take them down in the middle of > the day on a weekend. (This was a Major Retail Chain that did well over > 2 million credit card transactions per day) And because they were not a > customer with more than 32 T3's they didn't bother to notify them in > advance. We had to pry it out of a tech rep. > > Plus being that the switching capacity that Verison lost was in the WTC > and the circuit ends were there also I don't see how a deal with Ibasic > would have helped much. There would have been nothing to connect to > Ibasic. Remember that the World Trade Centers were just that the center > of the phone grid for that section of town. > > The comments before about the internet were just to point out that all > voice and data services generally ride the same fiber and if it's cut > and you don have another connection it won't matter if your > voice/data/internet you'll be down. > > And yes Verison did an amazing job of keeping what they had together > while they rebuilt the rest... > > -Geoff > > -Geoff > > > nrf wrote: > > Actually that is not what I was talking about at all. > > > > I was not looking at things from the enterprise standpoint, but rather from > > a provider standpoint - and specifically from Verizon's standpoint. > Verizon > > lost a lot of voice-switching capacity during 9-11, and while they > > admittedly and heroically rebuilt most of it quickly, they could have also > > recovered much of their functionality if they had relationships with an IP > > wholesaler like Ibasis. My analysis had nothing to do with what > enterprises > > could do about 9-11 (for it is indeed true that enterprise voice and data > > circuits tend to terminate at the same CO) to utilize of wholesalers but > > rather what a provider could have done to utilize wholesalers > > > > Also, perhaps this was just an oversight on your part, but few if any of > the > > wholesalers actually use the Internet for any of their capacity. IP is not > > the same as the Internet. The Internet will probably always suffer from > > problems related to security and/or reliability, because of the cherished > > anonymity of users (including those who would wreak havoc by creating > > viruses or DoS attacks) and because of the lack of a true central authority > > which is good because it allows for innovation, but you must admit is > > detrimental to reliability.Private IP networks can be properly secured > > and engineered in a way that the public Internet never can be. > > > > > > ""Geoff Kuchera"" wrote in message > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>Actually in the case of 9-11 if your internet was still working it was > >>because your data connection went through a Central office that was not > >>affected by the 9-11 incident. Keep in mind that data and traditional > >>voice still ride for the most part the same carrier services. Our > >>company lost several customers data connectivity due to the 9-11 > >>incident. Incidentally the connectivity loss occured about a week after > >>the buildings dropped when Sprints backup generators at the Manahtten CO > >>failes due to the long term load. We also lost a major connection to > >>one of our service provi
Re: CCIE Security Lab [7:17848]
Actually that is not what I was talking about at all. I was not looking at things from the enterprise standpoint, but rather from a provider standpoint - and specifically from Verizon's standpoint. Verizon lost a lot of voice-switching capacity during 9-11, and while they admittedly and heroically rebuilt most of it quickly, they could have also recovered much of their functionality if they had relationships with an IP wholesaler like Ibasis. My analysis had nothing to do with what enterprises could do about 9-11 (for it is indeed true that enterprise voice and data circuits tend to terminate at the same CO) to utilize of wholesalers but rather what a provider could have done to utilize wholesalers Also, perhaps this was just an oversight on your part, but few if any of the wholesalers actually use the Internet for any of their capacity. IP is not the same as the Internet. The Internet will probably always suffer from problems related to security and/or reliability, because of the cherished anonymity of users (including those who would wreak havoc by creating viruses or DoS attacks) and because of the lack of a true central authority which is good because it allows for innovation, but you must admit is detrimental to reliability.Private IP networks can be properly secured and engineered in a way that the public Internet never can be. ""Geoff Kuchera"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Actually in the case of 9-11 if your internet was still working it was > because your data connection went through a Central office that was not > affected by the 9-11 incident. Keep in mind that data and traditional > voice still ride for the most part the same carrier services. Our > company lost several customers data connectivity due to the 9-11 > incident. Incidentally the connectivity loss occured about a week after > the buildings dropped when Sprints backup generators at the Manahtten CO > failes due to the long term load. We also lost a major connection to > one of our service providers that just happened to run out of the WTC. > Fortunatly in that case we had two redundant connections in other parts > of the country. > > So saying that the internet was up when the voice channels weren't would > be a big over statement. Voice was up for the whole rest of the country > and so was the internet. Unless you happened to live on Manhatten and > didn't have backup power and a satellite connection. > > -Geoff > > nrf wrote: > > Buggy/unreliable software is indeed the same anywhere. But when combined > > with buggy/unreliable OS's, now we're talking about a solution that is > > REALLY buggy and unreliable. For example, if your software is only > > guaranteed to run at 3 9's, and your OS is also only guaranteed to run at 3 > > 9's, then overall we're talking about a less-than-3-9's of a solution. > > > > You can actually run packetized voice very reliably, and not just for toll > > bypass (although it is definitely true that toll-bypass is the easiest and > > most mature kind of packetized voice to do). The key is that you have to > > design things in a certain way to maximize your reliability. Many > carriers > > like SBC use packetized voice with soft-switch signalling in certain parts > > of their network, and then you have packetized voice wholesalers like > Ibasis > > that have massive available voice capacity and a good reputation for > > reliability. There was a huge amount of serious talk after 9-11 for > Verizon > > and other carriers to contract for backup voice capacity through somebody > > like Ibasis in case their voice switches got destroyed again - as during > > 9-11, people saw that while traditional voice service was severely > affected, > > packet networks like the Internet were still functioning, so in these kinds > > of circumstances, you could say that packetized voice might actually be > more > > reliable than regular voice.But again, it takes very careful design to > > achieve this kind of reliability. > > > > > > ""Chuck"" wrote in message > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>sure. ok. agreed. > >> > >>OTOH, buggy / unreliable software is the same, no matter whose platform it > >>runs on. A long time ago in a galaxy far away I was able to successfully > >>crash Sun Unix boxes several times through sheer ignorance. one was in the > >>Sun Sys Admin training class I was taking, the rest were Sun boxes that > > > > Big > > > >>Brokerage Firm had installed in the office where I worked. Proof that > > > > there > > > >>ain't no such thing as &qu
Re: ISS Real Secure Vs Cisco IDS [7:63461]
""Sean Kim"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hello all, > > My company is thinking about installing an IDS (dedicated appliance type) > for our network. > As far as I know, the Real Secure and the Cisco IDS are two biggest names > out there. Actually, the biggest name of all when it comes to IDS is Snort, which is a freeware open-source product. >So I checked out the documents and white papers provided by the > each company, but I couldn't really come up with what the differences are > between them, and which one is better suited for our network. > > Can anyone voice their opinion about these two IDS? > > Thanks, > > Sean Kim Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=63484&t=63461 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Distribute-list and OSPF [7:63144]
""The Long and Winding Road"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > ""Debbie Westall"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Just a thought, but how about when > > > > redistributing the routes to the other protocol using a route-map at the > > end and tagging the routes that came from ospf. Add another route-map > > statement that any route that has been tagged deny it. > > > > Example: > > > > router ospf 100 > > redistribute rip metric 130 subnets route-map RIP2OSPF > > > > route-map RIP2OSPF permit 10 > > set tag 66 > > route-map RIP2OSPF permit 20 > > > > router rip > > redistribute ospf 100 metric 3 route-map OSPF2RIP > > route-map OSPF2RIP deny 10 > > match tag 66 > > route-map OSPF2RIP permit 20 > > > > I just went through the ACP class and this was their solution to a > > similiar situation. > > > oh, sure, and this is one way of doing things. > > the CCIE prep materials generally try to force you to master several > alternatives. Cisco ASET, where I got this particular exercise, > unfortunately has but a single answer, and their answer, as determined by > their grading scripts, is distribute-lists. This gets back to my posted > concern about the future of CCIE Lab testing, where everything is done by > script, and where there is only one answer, whether or not there are > alternatives. > > route tagging is indeed an excellent way to control things, and should be > part of any CCIE Lab participant's toolbox. > The problem with this method is, of course, what if the best path to reach a route really is to go through the other IGP domain? For example, what if there is a split in your OSPF network, and for one particular OSPF router to reach another OSPF router, the best (heck, the only) path is to go through a RIP domain? All this filtering based on access-list or route-tag or whatever merely serves to break the redundancy that was a big reason for your using a routing protocol in the first place. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=63213&t=63144 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DVMRP in the CCIE Lab - ??? [7:62585]
""David C Prall"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I think I can answer this one without violating NDA. MOSPF is not > > covered in the lab because Cisco has chosen not to support MOSPF in > > IOS. Surely you would agree that it is not easy to test something in > > the lab that is not actually supported within Cisco gear.To > > digress, I am not aware of a single mainstream vendor that currently > > supports MOSPF (if anybody knows of one, I would like to hear it). > > > > Be careful what you wish for, there are commands related to MOSPF > http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122cgcr/fipr > _c/ipcprt2/1cfospf.htm#1001605 I knew somebody was going to come back with that. To reiterate, the ability to ignore MOSPF LSA's is clearly not the same as actually supporting MOSPF. Supporting MOSPF means, well, the ability to actually run MOSPF - i.e. the ability to actually build an mroute table from type6 LSA's. > > -- > David C Prall [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dcp.dcptech.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=62607&t=62585 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DVMRP in the CCIE Lab - ??? [7:62585]
""Cisco Nuts"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Ooops!! It should be my pant ;-> > > I did not mean anyone to violate the dreaded NDA. > > My question should have read: is DVMRP a part of the CCIE topics for the > Lab? > > The reason is that I see a lot of DVMRP material in the cmd. and config. > guide but not on other topics MOSPF etc. I think I can answer this one without violating NDA. MOSPF is not covered in the lab because Cisco has chosen not to support MOSPF in IOS. Surely you would agree that it is not easy to test something in the lab that is not actually supported within Cisco gear.To digress, I am not aware of a single mainstream vendor that currently supports MOSPF (if anybody knows of one, I would like to hear it). Other than that, anything within Cisco gear that is actually supported is fair game. > > I guess, then I will have to cover it in my studies for the Lab. > > Thank you, George for clarifying that!!! > > Sincerely, > > CN > > > > > > > > > >From: "Kaminski, Shawn G" > >Reply-To: "Kaminski, Shawn G" > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: RE: DVMRP in the CCIE Lab - ??? [7:62585] > >Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:26:04 GMT > > > >Uh oh. Someone on this list probably pooped their pants after reading CN's > >message because of the NDA. :-) > > > >Probably the most you'll get out of anyone is that it is possible that > >DVMRP > >is covered in the new CCIE lab because anything is fair game. Since the > >Cisco IOS software supports PIM-to-DVMRP interaction, there is a chance > >you'll see it depending on the lab you get. > > > >Shawn K. > > > >-Original Message- > >From: Cisco Nuts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 10:40 AM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: DVMRP in the CCIE Lab - ??? [7:62585] > > > >Hello, > >Is DVMRP covered at all in the new CCIE Lab? > >Any other new/odd topics? Ex. MRM or PGM?? > >Thank you. > >Sincerely, > >CN > > > > > > > > > > > >_ > >Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* > >http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > _ > MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=62600&t=62585 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE Self-Employment [7:62394]
>From what I've seen, you can still get very high rates. The problem is that in order to get those kind of rates, you either have to be very well connected, have a big name (far beyond what a CCIE could ever give you - for example, Dr. Vint Cerf could easily command a princely rate, but of course he "only" invented TCP/IP), or be an excellent salesman, or usually all of the above. Furthermore, it is extremely dangerous to assume that you will be getting that high rate consistently for 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year. The Usually the majority of your time will be spent scoping out clients, marketing yourself, and doing paperwork - things for which you are making no money. Also from what I've seen, for true success as a self-employed person, what is much more important than your technical skills is your business savvy. I know a bunch of technically brilliant people who could never run their own gig, and by the same token, I know guys who, quite frankly, suck technically, but have the slick salesmanship to be very successful at running their own business. You might ask how such people can actually get jobs done if they aren't technically sharp, and the answer is simple - they hire others to do it for them. To digress slightly,this is why at practically every tech company I know, the top salesmen always make substantially more than the top engineers - often by a factor of 3 to 5 times. ""supernet"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Not sure about Chicago area, but in my area, rate is generally above > $150/hr. And guess what, I'm in Silicon Valley. > > To configure a router or switch is simple. Worst case, pick up the phone > and call TAC will solve most configuration problems. Customers are > looking for someone that can run the show. CCIE is not enough, you also > need to know how to do project management and very importantly, how to > BS. > > This is based on several interviews I had during the past couple of > weeks. > > Yoshi > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > Mike Schlenger > Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 2:44 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: CCIE Self-Employment [7:62394] > > Really? WHERE DO I SIGN?? :) > > Mike > Chicagoland CCIE #7079 > > -Original Message- > From: Sam Munzani [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 4:12 PM > To: steve r; Jay Greenberg; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: CCIE Self-Employment > > > Rate depends on who is paying and how much do they have? :-) > > In chicago area $125/Hr is considered normal with 1 way travel time. If > you > got a fortune 500 client, you can easily bump it up to $175/Hr. and they > will not argue about it. > > Sam > > > > CCIE self employed, > > well if you find another CCIE to partner with you can get silver > partner > > status, (and some other requirements too) > > > > If you are in the biz you should know...pix...vpn and some other stuff > the > > hourly work is great but it depends on the clients locations...and the > > billing rate.. > > Good luck in this market it may be better then being out of work like > my > > friend is (and he is a CCIE too) > > Bill at what you can get $100 to $200 an hour or more > > or less if its cash.. > > > > Stephen > > - Original Message - > > From: "Jay Greenberg" > > To: ; > > Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 12:14 PM > > Subject: CCIE Self-Employment > > > > > > > Any CCIEs on the list in business for themselves? What's the money > > > like, what sort of companies do you work for? Do you do short-term > or > > > long term contracts? Hourly work? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > -- > > > Jason Greenberg, CCIE #11021 > > > > > > . > > . > 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=62425&t=62394 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Multiple ABR for a particular Area? [7:60654]
I certainly hope so. If you're only allowed one ABR per area, then when that ABR fails, that area is totally cut off. It would mean that every ABR in your network would be a single point of failure, and would basically mean that nobody would ever use OSPF. ""Peri Sophos"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Yes you can have more than one ABR for one particular area :) If you > want too. > > -Original Message- > From: Helena [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 1:21 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Multiple ABR for a particular Area? [7:60654] > > > Hi, > > Are you allowed to have more than one ABR for a particular area? For > example, 2 routers that are both ABR for Area 2? > > Thanks > Helena > NOTICE - This message contains privileged and confidential information > intended only for the use of the addressee named above. > Any review, retransmission, dissemination, copying, disclosure or other use > of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by person or > entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. > If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by > return email and delete this message. This message should not be copied or > used for any purpose other than intended, nor should it be disclosed to any > other person. Any views expressed in this message are those of the > individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be > the view of Investec Group, its subsidiaries or associates. > The Investec Group is not liable for the security of information sent by > e-mail at your request, nor for the proper and complete transmission of the > information contained in the communication nor for any delay in its > receipt. Please note that the recipient must scan this e-mail and any > attached files for viruses and the like. > The Investec Group accepts no liability of whatever nature for any loss, > liability, damage or expense resulting directly or indirectly from the > access of any files which are attached to this message. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60773&t=60654 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cisco 2501 & dot1q encapsulation ? [7:60699]
""Larry Letterman"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I dont believe so either, since they only support a 10BT > ethernet connection... It is correct that the 2500 does not support trunking (at least, not yet). But I don't know that the fact that they only support 10bt has anything to do with it. For example, the 2610/2611 have only 10bt also and they support trunking with the right IOS. I believe the 10bt ethernet module on one of the 4000 series routers (probably the4700M) also supported trunking. > > Larry Letterman > Network Engineer > San Jose Transport > Cisco Systems Inc. > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > John Neiberger > > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 7:43 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Cisco 2501 & dot1q encapsulation ? [7:60699] > > > > > > I don't believe that any of the 2500 series routers support trunking of > > any variety. If I'm wrong someone will surely correct me. > > > > John > > > > >>> "Thomas Muller" 1/9/03 8:21:59 AM >>> > > Hi, > > > > I've tried to configure dot1q on the LAN interface on my Cisco 2501 > > running > > 12.2 (IP Plus) > > but it doesn't seem to know the encapsulation dot1q command. > > > > Does anyone know if the 2500 series supports dot1q ? > > > > Thanks, Thomas > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -- > > +++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++ > > NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr f|r 1 ct/ Min. surfen! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60745&t=60699 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE Vs. BS or MS degree [7:59481]
""The Long and Winding Road"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > ""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > >snip> > > > > BTW, I do consider this a fundamentally silly discussion, but I think > > it's somewhat relevant for newbies to know that neither the cert nor > > the degree is the ultimate answer. > > > > OK. I'll provide the straight line. > > What IS the ultimate answer? You know, to Life? The Universe? And > Everything?!? ;-> Forty-Two. But what was the question again? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60536&t=59481 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE Vs. BS or MS degree [7:59481]
""Thomas"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I have heard these stories for years now. They always start with ... I knew > a guy who knew a guy that was a CCIE and he didn't know this or he didn't > know that. We all know what knowledge, skills, dedication, focus, > perserverance it takes to pass the CCIE. > > When I see someone that tries to make themselves feel smarter or downplay > the importance/accomplishment of being a CCIE, because of 1 CCIE who did > not at that particular moment know something rather trivial, I just laugh. > There are no paper CCIEs and there will be none. As long as the integrity of > the test remains the way it is. The notion of the 'paper-CCIE' is a tricky. Obviously every CCIE has to pass a lab exam, so in that sense they can't be 'paper'. (OK, the exception to this is the well-known problem of guys hiring ringers - basically hiring somebody to take the lab for them while using a fake identification and posing as you- but that's a whole 'nother problem). But on the other hand, there are indeed a significant number of CCIE's out there to which I would never trust a production network. They're not 'paper' because they did pass the lab, but they are basically "lab-CCIE's" because lab-work is the only thing they know. The 'lab-CCIE' (or perhaps the more pejorative term of 'lab-rat') is someone who has zero or minimal experience in a production environment. And let's not beat around the bush - a production network is totally different from a lab. One way to look at it is this. Let's say you're dying and you need an emergency surgery procedure. A doctor comes up to you and says that while he's never actually done the procedure before on a live-person, he's really really good at cutting up cadavers. Do you feel confident, or might you decide to choose another doctor who's actually done the procedure on a live person before? Be completely honest with yourself. Or, before you board an airplane, you hear that this is the first time the pilot has ever actually flown a plane, but he scores high whenever he plays Microsoft Flight Simulator. Are you still going to board the plane? The problem with CCIE's who don't know much is not necessarily the 'paper' aspect but rather the 'lab' aspect of it. Basically, the CCIE can no longer be taken as a guarantee that the guy has strong production experience, whereas in the old days, it was a pretty good guarantee. Let's face it - the CCIE developed a strong brand name in the early days because it was useful as a quick indicator of strong production network skills. Companies could spend less time ascertaining whether candidates had strong practical experience just by looking at a glance to see whether he had a CCIE or not. Now, they have to worry about whether the guy is a lab-rat or not - so they have to look at the guy's experience. Well, if they have to look at a guy's experience anyway, then that basically eliminates, from HR's perspective, the very reason why the CCIE was so valuable to them in the first place. One quick fix that I think Cisco should do for the program is something that the CISSP program does now - mandate X years of verifiable experience before you can attempt the lab. Or, if that seems too harsh, then perhaps Cisco can institute another program that sits on top of the CCIE (call it the CCIM or whatever) and have that program be not only hard, but also use verifiable experience as a pre-req. > > > ""2bie"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > It's not a fault of CCIE program .It's his mistake ;-) > > But, Did he receive his number ? Yes ? OK, surely he have a deep knowledge > > about OSPF, BPG, Redistribute, TCP/IP (except port 80), VoIP, Switching > > . I think it's enough, and I respect him. > > > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Ladrach, Daniel E." > > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 1:57 AM > > Subject: Re: CCIE Vs. BS or MS degree [7:59481] > > > > > > > I just want to make one more comment. I worked with a CCIE candidate not > > to > > > long ago that did not know what port 80 was. Also, he took the lab and > did > > > fairly well. > > > > > > Daniel Ladrach > > > CCNA, CCNP > > > WorldCom Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60531&t=59481 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE Vs. BS or MS degree [7:59481]
""Cisco Nuts"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Very well said!! > > As I ALWAYS tell my students: > > You can go to any school (including Harvard) and you can be assured that > you WILL pass the exams with a A, B, C or a D grade if you study the > material. > > The CCIE Lab - NO way man!! You can study and study and study ALL the > materials and you will either pass or FAIL!!! It's a one shot!! > > NO way around this. NO grades here. > > So which one is more difficult?? Take a guess!! Uh, how's that? Consider this. You fail the lab, you take it again. You fail again? You take it again.You can just keep taking it over and over again without penalty. A Harvard degree takes 4 years. I am pretty confident that anybody with half a brain who is willing to take the lab over and over again for 4 years will pass. You might retort that taking the lab over and over again costs a lot of money. Yeah, and Harvard doesn't? Again, take the money that you would have to pay for tuition and just use that for taking the lab over and over again. The hardest part about graduating from Harvard is not passing the classes - it's getting admitted in the first place. If you apply and are not admitted, you gotta wait for a whole another year to apply again. Clearly most high school seniors aren't going to do that - so for them, it's truly a one-shot deal. So, explain to me again how the lab is harder? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60525&t=59481 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE Vs. BS or MS dergree [7:60347]
Yet very strangely that while Larry Ellison dismisses the value of college, the entire executive ranks at Oracle (except himself) are all graduates. Larry could have hired whoever he wanted, so why isn't every manager at Oracle a dropout? So apparently even he doesn't think the degree is worthless. Don't judge people by their words - judge them by their actions. http://www.oracle.com/corporate/index.html?exebio.html ""Asad Javid"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Well have a look on what Larry Ellison, CEO of ORACLE said in a convocation > of the Yale University..and judge for ur self what if better .CCIE > or BS and Ms > > "Graduates of Yale University, I want you to do > something for me. Please, take a good look around > you. Look at the classmate on your left. Look at the > classmate on your right. Now, consider this: Five > years from now, 10 years from now, even 30 thirty > years from now, odds are the person on your left is > going to be a loser. The person on your right, > meanwhile, will also be a loser. And you, in the > middle? What can you expect? Loser. Loserhood. > > Loser Cum Laude. "In fact, as I look out before me > today, I don't see a thousand hopes for a bright > tomorrow. I don't see a thousand future leaders in a > thousand industries. I see a > thousand losers. "You're upset. That's > understandable. After all, how can I, Lawrence > 'Larry' Ellison, college dropout, have the audacity > to spout such heresy to the graduating class of one > of the nation's most prestigious institutions? I'll > tell you why. Because I, Lawrence "Larry" Ellison, > second richest man on the planet, am a college > dropout, and you are not. "Because Bill Gates, > richest man on the planet-for now, anyway-is a > college dropout, and you are not. "Because Paul > Allen, the third richest man on the planet, dropped > out of college, and you did not. "And for good > measure, because Michael Dell, No. 9 on the list and > moving up fast, is a college dropout, and you, yet > again, are not. Hmm... you're very upset. That's > understandable. So let me stroke your egos for a > moment by pointing out, quite sincerely, that your > diplomas were not attained in vain. Most of you, I > imagine, have spent four to five years here, and in > many ways what you've learned and endured will serve > you well in the years ahead. You've established good > work habits. You've established a network of people > that will help you down the road. And you've > established what will be lifelong relationships with > the word > 'therapy.' All that of is good. For in truth, you > will need that network. You will need those strong > work habits. You will need that therapy. "You will > need them because you didn't drop out, and so you > will never be among the richest people in the world. > > > Oh sure, you may, perhaps, work your way up to No. > 10 or No. 11, like Steve Ballmer. But then, I don't > have to tell you who he really works for, do I? And > for the record, he dropped out of > grad school. Bit of a late bloomer. "Finally, I > realize that many of you, and hopefully by now most > of you, are wondering, is there anything I can do? > Is there any hope for me at all?' > Actually, no. It's too late. You've absorbed too > much, think you know too much. You're not 19 > anymore. You have a built-in cap, and I'm not > referring to the mortar boards on your heads. Hmm... > you're really very upset. That's understandable. So > perhaps this would be a good time to bring up the > silver lining. Not for you, Class of '00. You are a > write-off, so I'll let you slink off to your > pathetic $200,000-a-year jobs, where your checks > will be signed by former classmates who dropped out > two years ago. Instead, I want to give hope to any > underclassmen here today. I say to you, and I can't > stress this enough: leave. Pack your things and your > ideas and don't come back. Drop out. Start up. "For > I can tell you that a cap and gown will keep you > down just as surely ..." Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60400&t=60347 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OT - Re: CCIE Vs. BS or MS dergree [7:60347]
Let me add one more thing. What Larry failed to mention is that if you packed together all the non-grads in the world, you would find that most of them turn out to be "losers" too. In fact, I would strongly suspect that the percentage of 'losers' in that group of people will be significantly higher than the percentage of 'losers' in the group of Yale grads. Before anybody jumps all over me, just think back to high school - to all the unmotivated, lazy guys in your class who didn't give a dam* about school and just wanted to spend all their time drinking and smoking-out. What are most of them doing now? As you would suspect - most of them aren't exactly living large. Or, as one of my friends who grew up poor and in a really really bad neighborhood and he tells me about a lot of the guys he grew up with who didn't study hard - most of them are living a criminal lifestyle, are in jail, or are dead. He credits his hard studying for pulling him out of that abyss, otherwise he admits that he'd probably be a criminal, in jail, or dead too. It's all about playing the percentages. Graduating from college does not guarantee success, just like exercising, eating right, and not smoking do not guarantee you a long, healthy life. What college does is increase your odds for success, just like going to the gym will increase your odds for health. ""Asad Javid"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Well have a look on what Larry Ellison, CEO of ORACLE said in a convocation > of the Yale University..and judge for ur self what if better .CCIE > or BS and Ms > > "Graduates of Yale University, I want you to do > something for me. Please, take a good look around > you. Look at the classmate on your left. Look at the > classmate on your right. Now, consider this: Five > years from now, 10 years from now, even 30 thirty > years from now, odds are the person on your left is > going to be a loser. The person on your right, > meanwhile, will also be a loser. And you, in the > middle? What can you expect? Loser. Loserhood. > > Loser Cum Laude. "In fact, as I look out before me > today, I don't see a thousand hopes for a bright > tomorrow. I don't see a thousand future leaders in a > thousand industries. I see a > thousand losers. "You're upset. That's > understandable. After all, how can I, Lawrence > 'Larry' Ellison, college dropout, have the audacity > to spout such heresy to the graduating class of one > of the nation's most prestigious institutions? I'll > tell you why. Because I, Lawrence "Larry" Ellison, > second richest man on the planet, am a college > dropout, and you are not. "Because Bill Gates, > richest man on the planet-for now, anyway-is a > college dropout, and you are not. "Because Paul > Allen, the third richest man on the planet, dropped > out of college, and you did not. "And for good > measure, because Michael Dell, No. 9 on the list and > moving up fast, is a college dropout, and you, yet > again, are not. Hmm... you're very upset. That's > understandable. So let me stroke your egos for a > moment by pointing out, quite sincerely, that your > diplomas were not attained in vain. Most of you, I > imagine, have spent four to five years here, and in > many ways what you've learned and endured will serve > you well in the years ahead. You've established good > work habits. You've established a network of people > that will help you down the road. And you've > established what will be lifelong relationships with > the word > 'therapy.' All that of is good. For in truth, you > will need that network. You will need those strong > work habits. You will need that therapy. "You will > need them because you didn't drop out, and so you > will never be among the richest people in the world. > > > Oh sure, you may, perhaps, work your way up to No. > 10 or No. 11, like Steve Ballmer. But then, I don't > have to tell you who he really works for, do I? And > for the record, he dropped out of > grad school. Bit of a late bloomer. "Finally, I > realize that many of you, and hopefully by now most > of you, are wondering, is there anything I can do? > Is there any hope for me at all?' > Actually, no. It's too late. You've absorbed too > much, think you know too much. You're not 19 > anymore. You have a built-in cap, and I'm not > referring to the mortar boards on your heads. Hmm... > you're really very upset. That's understandable. So > perhaps this would be a good time to bring up the > silver lining. Not for you, Class of '00. You are a > write-off, so I'll let you slink off to your > pathetic $200,000-a-year jobs, where your checks > will be signed by former classmates who dropped out > two years ago. Instead, I want to give hope to any > underclassmen here today. I say to you, and I can't > stress this enough: leave. Pack your things and your > ideas and don't come back. Drop out. Start up. "For > I can tell you that a cap and gown will keep you > down just as surely ..."
Re: Profession Cert or PhD!!! [7:60385]
""Kaminski, Shawn G"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Dr. Jimmy, :-) > > If I could get someone to pay for my Ph.D., I would go for it! pH would > definitely have more clout than CCNP/CCDP! Whether or not it would be easy > to find a position that requires a Ph.D. in Computer Science and a salary to > match is a whole different question. Generally speaking, it is quite rare for somebody to actually pay for their own PhD in CS (or any of the natural sciences or engineering, for that matter). Almost all PhD students of the natural sciences and engineering get fellowships or other such support from the university they're studying at (in return for the grad student working for the school). Humanities and some social sciences are a different story - but generally most natural science and engineering departments see grad students as cheap labor and will gladly forgo tuition in return for their work as a GSI or a research assistant. > > Shawn K. > > > -Original Message- > > From: Jimmy [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 8:55 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Profession Cert or PhD!!! [7:60385] > > > > If you will given a choice, would you choose to go for PhD in networking > > area or juz stay in your field and pursuing profession certification such > > as > > CCNP/CCDP etc. Assume that both is fully sponsored, can anyone tell me > > which > > one will paid off in a long run? > > > > Cheers! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60399&t=60385 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MBA/CPA/JD vs CCIE Vs. BS or MS degree vs Heisman Trophy vs [7:60324]
""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > I think an agenda is emerging here, nrf. This thread seemed, at least > >> to me, to deal with the merits of academia, certification, or > >> combinations to move into technical jobs. > > > >I completely disagree with the insinuation that I have solely been moving > >the discussion in any direction. If anything, I am only moving where others > >are taking me. People want to invoke things like ethics and happiness > >(which as far as I can tell had nothing to do with the initial argument) > >into the argument, and I am only too happy to oblige. But I don't see you > >jumping all over them - why not? I too thought we were just talking > >about degrees vs. certs, but other people want to go to other places. > > Because, offhand, I have only seen you bringing up the issue of > people bringing up general management and tying it to power and > money. Tradeoffs in the technical area of the value of certifications > vs. academic training, especially early in one's career, seemed to be > the scope of the original discussion. To the best of my knowledge, > this list has never emphasized how to use technical skills to > springboard into general management. Ah, but I think that my point is best made by emphasizing one of the more important virtues of the degree - that it can serve as a springboard into general management and/or into other aspects of business besides technology. I believe you cannot fairly assess the value of the degree without bringing in this specific point. It's like asking somebody what the value of a diamond ring is - without the diamond. And why do I harp on power and money? Simple. Let's be brutally honest here. Why are most people even interested in the CCIE at all?Although nobody wants to say it, we all know the truth. Most people are interested in the CCIE because it might increase their power and/or earning potential. We all know that's the truth. Now - don't get me wrong - I didn't say all people. And I also didn't say that those were the only reasons people do it. But we would be most naive to believe that money and power didn't have a lot to do with it. To my detractors who probably want to jump down my throat for saying so - I would just say that you know in your heart that it's true - that money and power have a lot to do with the interest in the CCIE program. So if that's the real and honest battlefield that I'm fighting on, I don't think it at all inappropriate to apply the same criteria to the degree as well. You're looking at the CCIE because of (to be honest) money and power? Well, the degree can also bring you money and power, just in a different way. For example the degree can help you get into high management, which brings with it, money and power. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60324&t=60324 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE Vs. BS or MS degree [7:59481]
""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > At 11:12 PM + 1/4/03, nrf wrote: > > > > > > >So if it's doing public good that concerns you, then the more successful you > >are, the more you have to give. Let's face it - it's not going to be easy > >to create a charitable foundation that helps millions of people the way the > >Rockefeller Foundation did if you're working for minimum wage. > > Did I miss something about Mother Teresa's pay scale? > > I never said she wasn't tough. Anyone who pays a visit to the > hospital bed of the then-Mayor of New York (Ed Koch) recovering from > a heart attack, blesses him, and then hits on him for more reserved > parking places for her missions is TOUGH. Touche, but the point I was trying to make was this. I don't want this to come off as a low-blow, and I'm certainly not accusing anybody here of being two-faced. But I've heard the argument before from people who say that they don't want to enter the business world, or climb the corporate ladder because they think that Corporate America is corrupt and they are more concerned with being ethical and doing good for the community. Yet many of these same people (not all, but many) do little if anything for the community that they claim to care for. Which begs the question that if you choose not to follow the rules of Big Business because you think it's evil and you are concerned with doing and being good, then why aren't you doing good works? Hmmm. Now, let me reiterate. The above paragraph might be construed as an attempt by me to take a shot at certain people here. Not at all. I'm just stating a phenomenom that I have seen from some people not on this NG. By the way, while Mother Teresa may not have personally had a lot of money, her practice obviously got money from somewhere. You can't feed and care for thousands without some kind of financial backing. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60322&t=59481 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MBA/CPA/JD vs CCIE Vs. BS or MS degree vs Heisman Trophy vs [7:60319]
> I think an agenda is emerging here, nrf. This thread seemed, at least > to me, to deal with the merits of academia, certification, or > combinations to move into technical jobs. I completely disagree with the insinuation that I have solely been moving the discussion in any direction. If anything, I am only moving where others are taking me. People want to invoke things like ethics and happiness (which as far as I can tell had nothing to do with the initial argument) into the argument, and I am only too happy to oblige. But I don't see you jumping all over them - why not? I too thought we were just talking about degrees vs. certs, but other people want to go to other places. > > In your last few posts, however, I'm only confused whether the thrust > of your arguments is to maximize monetary return, or to reach the top > ranks of general corporate management. Now, if you had a screen name > of NFL, I'd suggest you have more monetary potential than most > corporate executives. If you can give a creditable impression of > Christina Aguilara, that also offers significant potential. The > latter, however, might require an unacceptable level of surgery. Not > that I have met you personally, but I know several people in the > business that have much better genetics for that mission, including, > indeed, at least one top executive that has been mentioned. What I am doing it attempting to counter the notion that certifications are the only thing that matters - something that often times seems to be the prevailing paradigm on this particular newsgroup. Certs have their use, don't get me wrong. But it is a tremendously reckless strategy to dismiss the value of the degree categorically. By electing not to get your degree, you are closing opportunities off to yourself. Simple as that. That's my point. Now, everybody should make the calculation that perhaps getting the degree is not worth its cost in terms of time and money, and that's a perfectly valid calculation to make. Or you might respond that those opportunities that you are closing are not, and will never be, of interest to you, and that is yet another perfectly valid observation to make. What is not valid is to delude oneself into thinking that you are not closing off any opportunities. > > But to my mind, your utopia has relatively little to do with > networking. Personally, I don't agonize about not making a > seven-figure plus income when I can make six figures doing things I > love. Now, yes. I want enough product management authority, > including P&L justification, that I can see my best ideas come to > fruition -- and those are not one-person projects. I still believe, > for example, I have an architecture in mind that could give orders of > magnitude improvement in certain aspects of router performance. > Perhaps some day I will land a slot as technology VP of a startup, > make that happen, cash out, and mix my interests in network research > and medicine. Heh heh, so I see you want money too. That's my point. A lot of people want to do what they really want to do - but they cannot because they don't have financial security. That's not to say that everybody should believe that money is the most important thing in the world, for it is not. But it can certainly enable happiness. > > There is no question, however, I could be making much more right now > in the networking industry had I chosen to go into sales. I'm an > excellent verbal and written communicator, can make business cases, > etc., but I don't like playing corporate politics. That, > incidentally, is quite different than participating in general > politics -- throughout my adult life, I've been involved in issue > lobbying. > > > > >But on the other hand, even you agree that there are a lot of people (not > >just Americans, but a lot of people in the world) who want money. For some > >of these people, it is precisely money that brings them happiness. And > >who's to say that you can't have a happy career that also happens to produce > >a lot of money? I don't see it as an either-or choice. Sure, some rich > >people are unhappy. But go to the bad, poverty-stricken part of town, and > >you'll see some REALLY unhappy people. I volunteer for various charities, > >and I spent the holidays providing toys for needy people who couldn't afford > >to buy simple gifts for their children. I was happy to help out, but > >that's some real misery I was looking at. > > > > > >Like I said, if you're happy with your lot, then God bless you. But again, > >I don't see that business success and ethics is necessarily an either-or > >choice. You can be successful and e
Re: CCIE Vs. BS or MS degree [7:59481]
""Geoff Zinderdine"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > But on the other hand, even you agree that there are a lot of people (not > > just Americans, but a lot of people in the world) who want money. For > some > > of these people, it is precisely money that brings them happiness. And > > who's to say that you can't have a happy career that also happens to > produce > > a lot of money? I don't see it as an either-or choice. > > You can, and I do. I also don't see it as an either or choice. I just > don't equate reaching the top management of a big company and having their > astronomical salaries as the summum bonum of existence. Fine, like I said, if my arguments don't apply to you, then so be it. My point was that for quite a few people, reaching the top of the summit really is their sine-qua-non. Again, I would state the question again for anybody who's still reading this (not you, Geoff). Be honest with yourself. Be completely and totally honest with yourself. Will you be happy just being the technical box-slinger for a long time, and perhaps for the rest of your life? If the answer really is 'yes', then you can probably safely forgo the degree. But if you have even the slightest shred of doubt, I would counsel you to cover your bases.Again, this doesn't apply to you, Geoff, cuz I know what your answer is going to be. This applies to anybody else out there. > > > Sure, some rich > > people are unhappy. But go to the bad, poverty-stricken part of town, and > > you'll see some REALLY unhappy people. I volunteer for various charities, > > and I spent the holidays providing toys for needy people who couldn't > afford > > to buy simple gifts for their children. I was happy to help out, but > > that's some real misery I was looking at. > > These aren't the only two options. The vast middle ground between misery > and misery is where I want to live. I have learned more from my defeats > than from my successes and I have lived in those neighborhoods for much of > my life. They are a fertile ground. Actually, most studies have shown that the more money people get the happier they tend to be. Sure, the dh/d$ (where h = happiness) decreases over time, but it is still a positive number. Again, that's not to say that all rich people are happy, but they tend to be more happy on average than people who are not as rich, and much more happy than people who are poor. Don't get me wrong. I'm not counseling that people should drop everything to make more money. Obviously there is more to happiness than just money. But money does play a role. > > > Like I said, if you're happy with your lot, then God bless you. But > again, > > I don't see that business success and ethics is necessarily an either-or > > choice. You can be successful and ethical. > > > > And besides, I don't know that ethics has anything to do with this > argument. > > CCIE's can be just as unethical as anybody else. > > Yes of course they can, but that isn't the issue. The issue is what kind of > life you have in the upper echelons of management. Like in politics > however, you have to give up certain principles and worldviews in order to > succeed in most if not all corporate cultures. I value the principles that > I have which have more to do with working for the good of others over one's > own selfish needs more than I value the uncompromising pursuit of self > interest that is intrinsic in the corporate world. I would argue that if this is really a concern, then one excellent way to alleviate this problem (if it is a problem) is the higher up you go, the more charity work you do. Not that I'm trying to pat myself on the back, but that's exactly what I've done. Sure, you might be a tough bastard from 9-5, but after hours, with the extra money you've made, you're giving back to the community. If you say that working for the good of others is truly the goal here, then by being more successful and making more money, you have more to give to others. >The pursuit of > outrageous wealth is full of compromises I am unwilling to make. That said, > are there those that have kept true to their principles and become wealthy? > Of course. They have generally done it by *owning* companies, not managing > them. All of this discussion speaks again to people having to decide on a > path which fulfils them rather than merely applying statistical probability > to very important decisions. Forget about a strict adherance to principles. Let's talk about overall net good. Andrew Carnegie was an unbelievably tough businessman. But when he died, he gave all his money to public causes - i.e. Carnegie-Mellon University, much of the American public library system, etc. The net good that Carnegie gave to the world was, I believe, highly positive. John Rockefeller - also a rough and tumble businessman, maybe the roughest of all, but also founded Rockefeller University, the University of Chicago
Re: CCIE Vs. BS or MS degree [7:59481]
""Geoff Zinderdine"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Uh, sounds curiously like a case of sour grapes. Guys who are at the top > of > > the business world make more money in a week than we make in a year. More > > to the point, in my experience, it's always better to be the one giving > > orders than to be the one taking them. Why do you think the comic strip > > Dilbert is so popular? Sure, the pointy-haired boss might not know > > anything, but at the end of the day, he's still the one giving orders. > > You seem to suffer from that curious American disease of equating money with > career fulfilment and happiness. There is no sour grapes at all, and > throughout my various career paths I have chosen what made me happy over > what made me rich. This is not to say that I want to work for free, but I > am quite happy making what I do in a year. I have no desire to do a job I > loathe to make more money. I couldn't care less who gives orders. There is > far more nobility in serving well than in managing poorly. Hey, if you're cool with that, then that's cool.That's always been my point - if you're happy being the technical guy who's taking orders from other people, then God bless you, everything that I say doesn't apply to you. But on the other hand, even you agree that there are a lot of people (not just Americans, but a lot of people in the world) who want money. For some of these people, it is precisely money that brings them happiness. And who's to say that you can't have a happy career that also happens to produce a lot of money? I don't see it as an either-or choice. Sure, some rich people are unhappy. But go to the bad, poverty-stricken part of town, and you'll see some REALLY unhappy people. I volunteer for various charities, and I spent the holidays providing toys for needy people who couldn't afford to buy simple gifts for their children. I was happy to help out, but that's some real misery I was looking at. > > I have never been interested in corporate culture... and the revelations of > the wrongdoings of American business over the past few years point to > exactly why I am not. It is far better to be ethical and content than to > try to devour the world with one's greed. Like I said, if you're happy with your lot, then God bless you. But again, I don't see that business success and ethics is necessarily an either-or choice. You can be successful and ethical. And besides, I don't know that ethics has anything to do with this argument. CCIE's can be just as unethical as anybody else. > > Regards, > > Geoff Zinderdine > CCIE #10410 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60305&t=59481 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE Vs. BS or MS degree [7:59481]
""Geoff Zinderdine"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > For the record, I studied and practiced hard, and passed the CCIE lab with > > precious little "industry experience." I found a great job in a great > > company within two months of passing the CCIE Lab, and I had a few other > > interested folks contact me for interviews. > > The demagoguery of this whole thread aside, my experience was much the same > as Mr. Larus'. I had little industry experience and also found exactly the > job I wanted in exactly the place I wanted for exactly the money that I > asked for within two and a half months. I also had three other offers and > a series of five interviews with a prominent multinational whose only > concern was my lack of customer facing time as I was interviewing for a > pre-sales role. As I am a high school dropout with only a couple years of > university to my credit, you can more clearly see the effect of the CCIE on > my career than on Mr. Larus' as he was a lawyer in his previous > incarnation and hence brings allot to the table outside of the CCIE even > without much industry experience. Every one of the CCIEs that I know is > working aside from one that is dedicating more time to flying RC gliders off > a cliff in San Francisco than job searching:) Geez, ever go to the jobs NG? It's absolutely filled with jobless CCIE's. > > If you want to get a good job in the networking field, the CCIE is a great > path to take. Just bear in mind that the CCIE guarantees nothing. There are plenty of unemployed CCIE's out there. > If you would rather rise to the top management of Cisco or > some other Fortune 500 company you are better off with a degree... or > perhaps even better, many hours in the garden watching some rapacious slug > devour and assimilate everything in its path. Keep in mind that business > (like government and unlike fish) is curious in that the bottomfeeders > congregate at the top. Uh, sounds curiously like a case of sour grapes. Guys who are at the top of the business world make more money in a week than we make in a year. More to the point, in my experience, it's always better to be the one giving orders than to be the one taking them. Why do you think the comic strip Dilbert is so popular? Sure, the pointy-haired boss might not know anything, but at the end of the day, he's still the one giving orders. > > YMMV and gas is about to get more expensive, > > Geoff Zinderdine > CCIE #10410 > > P.S. Tom, is your career recapitulating phylogeny? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60303&t=59481 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE Vs. BS or MS degree [7:59481]
""Marc Thach Xuan Ky"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Thomas Larus wrote: > snip > > As for nrf, - his contributions to groupstudy have been almost entirely > > negative. While it is helpful to have some discussion of things like the > job > > market and the question of whether it is better to invest time and effort > in > > a degree versus certification is useful, constantly chiming in with > negative > > thoughts and assessments is not very helpful. This is something of a > > support group, and in these difficult times, those of us who have already > > set out to achieve certification goals need encouragement and technical > > advice. > > I have recently strongly disagreed with nrf, but I do not find him > negative as you suggest. I think it's a shame if people cannot > contribute without being personally attacked in such a generalised > manner. > > > I do not know if nrf is one of these people (he could just be negative for > > no particular reason), there are some people who come to these discussion > > groups to discourage others from pursuing dreams the achievement of which > > might bring about a greater number of certified IT professionals and > perhaps > > exert downward pressure on salaries. > > I don't know nrf personally but I doubt that he's that influential. > Anybody who gets put off the cert process by reading a discouraging > viewpoint on this list probably doesn't have the mettle to see it > through anyway. Exactly. I think Mr. Larus gives me far too much credit. Besides, I doubt that I'm saying anything that people don't already know, or at least suspect. Certs have their good and bad points, and people who elect to pursue them should understand what those good and bad points are. It's really as simple as that. > > rgds > Marc Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60272&t=59481 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE Vs. BS or MS degree [7:59481]
""Thomas Larus"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> While Mr. Ladrach is almost certainly correct in his statement that the
CCIE
> is less challenging that physics and calculus, he might be able to speak
> more authoritatively once he has passed the Lab Exam.
>
> As for being easier than accounting and economics classes, if you are
> reasonably intelligent and do all the homework, you will almost certainly
> pass most accounting and economics classes. You can be reasonably
> intelligent, do all the right things in preparation for the CCIE lab, and
> fail and fail and fail again.
>
> While I would certainly say that the CCIE material is less difficult to
> learn than some other subjects I have studied, I can honestly say that I
> have never studied so hard for one test in my life, or gotten myself into
a
> state where I had such an "edge"-- a certain sharpness and facility with a
> given subject matter that I fear I may never experience again (unless I go
> for a second CCIE). It is not rocket science, but you have to execute
VERY
> well.
>
> As for nrf, - his contributions to groupstudy have been almost entirely
> negative. While it is helpful to have some discussion of things like the
job
> market and the question of whether it is better to invest time and effort
in
> a degree versus certification is useful, constantly chiming in with
negative
> thoughts and assessments is not very helpful. This is something of a
> support group, and in these difficult times, those of us who have already
> set out to achieve certification goals need encouragement and technical
> advice.
>
> I do not know if nrf is one of these people (he could just be negative for
> no particular reason), there are some people who come to these discussion
> groups to discourage others from pursuing dreams the achievement of which
> might bring about a greater number of certified IT professionals and
perhaps
> exert downward pressure on salaries.
I didn't realize that I was supposed to be people's personal cheerleader.
Uh, since when exactly did that become part of my job? I don't remember
seeing anything about 'emotional support' when I signed up for this NG.
We're all adults here (I hope). I see no need to patronize anybody. I'm
not your father and I'm not your shrink. You want support? You should go
talk to your significant other. You want the truth? Come here and talk to
me or some of the other people here. I don't see it as my job to pat people
on the back. Like I said, we're all adults here and we shouldn't need that.
Look, I am here neither to encourage nor discourage. I call it like I see
it, - and if that encourages or discourages people, then fine, but that's
not my goal. If things are good, then I'll say they're good, and if things
are bad, I'm going to say they're bad. To do otherwise is really to engage
in a pernicious form of censorship. This would not be a far cry from a
situation where, before anybody asks a question on this NG, a person should
immediately and privately email everybody here and tell them exactly how
they should respond - therefore when he does ask the question, he will get
the exact answer he wants. But if that's what this NG is all about, then
why even bother to post on the NG at all - why not just have a conversation
with yourself? That way you will always get the exact answer that you are
looking for. "Should I do this?" "Well, of course, and by the way, aren't
you wonderful and handsome...".
After all, if something is bad, especially as it pertains to the job market,
isn't it better to hear it now rather than find out later the hard way?
How exactly does it help anybody to tell people fantasies about how the CCIE
is the greatest thing since sliced bread when we all know that it is not?
In the long run, does this really help anybody? Isn't it more helpful to
tell people the truth? {And when exactly have I posted something that was a
lie?}
One funny phenomenom that I've discovered is that some people think that
through my posts I am encouraging people whereas others think, via those
exact same posts, that I am discouraging them. Delicious irony. Those
detractors should get together and figure it out amongst themselves and then
come back here and tell me what they've decided.
>
> For the record, I studied and practiced hard, and passed the CCIE lab with
> precious little "industry experience." I found a great job in a great
> company within two months of passing the CCIE Lab, and I had a few other
> interested folks contact me for interviews.
>
> I certainly cannot make any promises about the future, but my point is
that
> if you can get all
Re: WHY CCIE Vs. BS or MS degree discussion is bro [7:60231]
""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > At 3:53 PM + 1/3/03, Mr piyush shah wrote: > > > > > >Dear all > >I thing it is now a real high time someone should take > >initiative in stoping the subject of CCIE vs BS or MS > >degree. Why are we here for ? to discuss and share > >problems faced on networking front And is the difficult decision about whether to get a networking certification in the first place not a problem worthy of discussion? I would venture to say that it perhaps is the most important problem of all. > > All joking aside, I think this is the key point, and something that a > lot of people miss. I do know, partially from private email, that > there are a substantial number of people that lose track of the > relevance of academic (not necessarily ATTENDING college or getting > degrees) material and focus completely on certification. There it is. You hit it right on the head. I think a lot of people are emotionally invested in the cert process and have lost the forest for the trees. One especially ugly manifestation of this is the phenomena that people who are certified automatically think they know everything about everything and therefore don't need to continue learning. > > A couple of personal observations: I have no interest in getting into > top corporate management, but I have and will be in senior technology > management. nrf, it seems, distinguishes simply between management > and non-management. In Cisco's case, I'd have no interest in John > Chambers' job, but I might in Christine Hemrick's -- a former > colleague at GTE. There is no hard and fast rule. Just like anything in life, it's not all black-and-white. I concede that even some people can enter top management with no degree. But what I'm saying is that the higher you go, the harder slogging it gets. You need to do more and more things to compensate for that lack of a degree that higher up you go. This is why the higher up you look in any company, the higher the percentage of grads. By the way, Ms. Hemrick is a grad. And again, I would reiterate that perhaps the most important facet of a degree is that it gives you flexibility to change your career. Do you wanna stay technical forever, or might you feel like doing something else sometime in your life? There's a reason why the Wall Street banks, for example, recruit at college campuses , but not at the local high school. Bankers, by the way, are another group of people who make more money in a week than we make in a year. > > Much of the drive for certification (and indeed degrees) is getting > into the door for the first job. While, admittedly, I am having some > fun with certain people, I'm deadly serious that some of the more > formal technical skills need to be understood if you stay technical > but move out of support. > > >or discusing > >whether BS is SUPERIOROR ccie . Let me tell you both > >the degreees are best in their unique ways . Who the > >heil are we to decide it's superioritY ? lIKE i > >MENTIONED WE ALL ARE INDIRECTLY SUPPORTING THE one > >whosoever raised this querry by getting involved in > >this question-answer forum . I thing we should stop > >it.There are lot many imp things on which we need to > >condcentrate more. And what important things would that be? Certain guys who come here who are clearly posting questions that they saw from their CCIE written/lab that they didn't know and want somebody to give them the answer instead of researching it themselves? Others who are simply too lazy to RTFM and want somebody to do their job for them? > >Hope so the message is loud and clear to all those > >participant to these group . > > > >Regards > > > > > >Note: forwarded message attached. > > > > > >Missed your favourite TV serial last night? Try the new, Yahoo! TV. > >visit http://in.tv.yahoo.com > >X-Apparently-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] via web8002.mail.in.yahoo.com; > > 03 Jan 2003 03:45:39 +0500 (IST) > >X-Track: 1: 100 > >Return-Path: > >Received: from groupstudy.com (66.220.63.9) by mta101.in.mail.yahoo.com > > with SMTP; 03 Jan 2003 03:45:37 +0500 (IST) > >Received: from localhost (mail@localhost) by groupstudy.com > > (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA30437; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 21:52:13 GMT > >Received: by groupstudy.com (bulk_mailer v1.13); Thu, 2 Jan 2003 > > 21:16:19 + > >Received: (from listserver@localhost) by groupstudy.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id > > VAA17958 GroupStudy Mailer; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 21:16:18 GMT > &
Re: CCIE Vs. BS or MS degree [7:59481]
>> >Yet I doubt that John Chambers ever read an RFC before in his life. But > >let's face it. Let's be totally and completely honest. I know this might > >come across as a low-blow, but at the end of the day, who really has more > >influence on the direction of the networking industry - the best CCIE in the > >world, or Mr. Chambers? > > Let's not forget a third path. Vint Cerf (PhD and Worldcom senior > VP). Scott Bradner. Fred Baker. Sandy Lerner and Len Bosack as > innovators rather than corporate managers. Bill Carrico. Deborah > Estrin. Other innovators that start major technologies. Aha - you just said it right there. It's DOCTOR Vint Cerf. It's not CCIE Vint Cerf, but Doctor Vint Cerf. The point is that not a person above has a CCIE to their name. > > For that matter, consider Ira Magaziner, Esther Dyson, Newton Minow, > Charlie Brown (AT&T, not Peanuts), etc. Brown is interesting in that > he worked his way up to AT&T CEO from a starting job as a cable > splicer. In today's communications world, I would have said that > could never happen again, given CEOs tend to come from finance or > sales --- but I look now at Enron, Worldcom, etc., and wonder. Yet again - how many CCIE's in that mix? I would venture to say about zero. See, that's my point. If you just want to be a box-slinger, by all means get the CCIE. If you actually want to change the industry, it's far less powerful. That's my point. > > > > > >Yet in the eyes of a company, how are you supposed to know that a candidate > >is a slacker? Every candidate is going to claim to be the greatest worker > >in the world, but how do you know that they're telling the truth - > >particularly when they have no work record to judge them by? > > Exactly. Different rules apply to new and established job seekers. I > haven't gone through a conventional job-seeking process in years -- > either I was recruited or I helped create a position. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60196&t=59481 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE Vs. BS or MS dergree [7:59481]
> >Uh, this does not follow. How many CCIE's really really understand, say, > >BGP or OSPF? No, not just how to configure it, but how it really actually > >works. Give you an example - I would be hard pressed to find a lot of > >CCIE's who can explain to me how Dijkstra really works. Some can, but I > >would say that most, especially the newer CCIE's, cannot. How many can > >actually explain how a BGP RIB actually works? > > A Loc-RIB, an Adj-RIB-In, or an Adj-RIB-Out, as opposed to the RIB and FIB? > :-) Very good. But like I said, go to any recent CCIE and ask them the same thing. I would venture that the majority will not be able to answer. > > > > >Nobody's knocking anybody for anything. I'm just merely presenting the > >facts. Out of all the companies in the world, the one with the most respect > >for the CCIE program is, surprise surprise, Cisco. Yet if you look at > >Cisco's top management, you'll find a lot of degrees, but no CCIE's > >whatsoever. Draw your own conclusion about what that means. > > > > What conclusions would you draw from the fact that CCIEs are quite > rare among Cisco product developers and product managers? Cisco, as > opposed, say, to HP, historically has marketing executives at the > top, not engineers. Other companies have other cultures. Few if any companies have a culture of respecting technical certification over formal education. Does Microsoft fill its top ranks with MCSE's? Does Oracle fill its ranks with OCP's? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60195&t=59481 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE Vs. BS or MS degree [7:59481]
> *sigh* one of the classic complaints of interns is how they were told > "don't worry about the details--learn the concepts." Now, facing a > cardiac arrest, how many milliliters of what concept do they need to > inject? Yet at the same time we have the opposite phenomena - guys who can configure routers in a Sunday minute, but can't even spell RFC. What I'm talking about is guys who might know what all the commands are, but have no grounding in routing protocol theory or any such higher concepts. All they know is - they see this problem, they type in this command. Such guys are useful if you need to troubleshoot your network at 3 in the morning, not so useful if you want to do something that isn't in a textbook. And besides, I hate to say it, but these guys are destined to be replaced by a good OSS. > > >The purpose of the > >> college > >> > degree is to provide you with a a reservoir of general knowledge upon > >> which > >> > you can draw, as well as practice in life-skills such as > >problem-solving, > > > > critical thinking, and time-management. > > To say nothing of coping with hangovers. I think you relate more of the truth than you think. The fact is, business is greased with alcohol, especially on the sales side of things. One of the biggest pre-reqs of being a good salesman is how to drink. And let's face it - good salesmen make more money in a month than we make in a year. > > > >To wit - in a hundred years, in the English major, Shakespeare will still be > >Shakespeare, in the political science major, Marx will still be Marx, > > Karl or Groucho? In any case, Marxism is probably more an economic > than a political theory -- thesis/antithesis/synthesis certainly did > not originate with Karl and Friedrich. Point stands though - in a 100 years, Marx will still be an subject worthy of study. > >> > Now, that I can't let slide. Freud was a seminal thinker, but in > detail, even his immediate disciples, Jung, Adler, Fromm-Reichmann, > etc., think more clearly. There have been entire new disciplines > since Freud, such as most of cognitive theory. Neurobiology is > transforming the discipline. The point is not to say that Freud was right all the time, just like Aristotle wasn't right all the time. But that doesn't mean that their ideas are unworthy of study. > > > Why are these mutually exclusive? Thinking of my colleagues on the > BGP convergence project, all practicing computer scientists, and what > we tend to talk about at the bar: > > Educational background > -- > MS, psychology Learning behavior in machines and people. Ethics > MS, CS South Asian cooking and theology > something BritishBBC comedy, political history > ?? Politics, the NFL > PhD, mathBook publishing and writing style. Yet I doubt that John Chambers ever read an RFC before in his life. But let's face it. Let's be totally and completely honest. I know this might come across as a low-blow, but at the end of the day, who really has more influence on the direction of the networking industry - the best CCIE in the world, or Mr. Chambers? \> > > >Now I do agree that universities often times do have a certain doctrinal > >bent, but on the other hand, I have found most universities to be more > >filled with independent thinkers than the average place. > > > And one doesn't NEED universities to develop independent thought, if > one has the commitment to do so. They are one of many ways to a path. Indeed. But universities are the tried and true path. More importantly, they are the recognized path. The problem with any other path is that they are simply not recognized as such. Therefore when it comes to ascertaining who is intellectually capable and who is not, it is extremely difficult to gauge a person who took the road less travelled. Anybody can claim to be a wandering philosopher who has spent their spare time training their mind on the various mental disciplines of the world - but it is really true? Maybe the guy really just spent all his time hanging out at the local bar. At least with the college degree, you recognize the work effort involved. You know what it is. > > > > > > > >> I think you are committing 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'. Gates values > >smart > >> people and as most smart people go through university it is moot whether > >it > >> is the diploma that is significant in getting them the job or their > >> intelligence that is more important. > > There are dropouts at the highest levels of the IETF, etc. Hey, there are guys who smoke 3 packs a day who live to be a 100. There are guys who actually win in Vegas.. That's the thing about statistics - nothing is ever guaranteed. There will always be exceptions. I certainly am not going to tell my kids that smoking is good or that they should spend their entire life savings at the roulette table. > > > > >Even if this were the
Re: CCIE Vs. BS or MS dergree [7:59481]
""Jim Newton"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I have taken all of the classes listed below while in the engineering school > at University of Wisconsin. > > I know that there was not one of them that demanded the attention to detail > and total commitment that was required to get my CCIE. I carried a 4.0 > through almost all of those classes while barely cracking a book. I wish I > could have said the same about my CCIE. Then I wouldn't have had to ignore > my wife and son for the last year and a half. > > I am not knocking a degree, because I feel it is as important if not more so > than my certification. But to say that the degree is tougher is not > necessarily true. It is comparing apples to oranges. The degree is almost > all book knowledge where if you can regurgitate the correct answer without > totally understanding it you pass. Try to pass the lab without a complete > understanding of the topics covered. Uh, this does not follow. How many CCIE's really really understand, say, BGP or OSPF? No, not just how to configure it, but how it really actually works. Give you an example - I would be hard pressed to find a lot of CCIE's who can explain to me how Dijkstra really works. Some can, but I would say that most, especially the newer CCIE's, cannot. How many can actually explain how a BGP RIB actually works? Heck, I would venture to say that many of them have never even tried to read the relevant RFC's - and if you've never read the RFC's, it's difficult to claim that you actually understand how the technology really works. Learning how to configure something is far far different from actually understanding it. A mechanic might be able to fix an engine, but a mechanical engineer can actually design a new one. >But at the same time, the CCIE focuses > on a narrow range of topics where any good degree forces you to learn a wide > breadth of information. > > Anyone who knocks either without having achieved them both is not doing > justice to the people who worked hard to achieve what they have done. I know > of engineers who said their CCIE was harder than their degree and vice > versa. So give everyone credit for what they have achieved and don't knock > them for what they haven't. Nobody's knocking anybody for anything. I'm just merely presenting the facts. Out of all the companies in the world, the one with the most respect for the CCIE program is, surprise surprise, Cisco. Yet if you look at Cisco's top management, you'll find a lot of degrees, but no CCIE's whatsoever. Draw your own conclusion about what that means. > > I hate to admit it but the smartest person I ever knew in my life only had a > sixth grade education and taught himself everything on his own after that. > He taught himself Calculus, Physics and a lot of advanced engineering > skills. He never had a diploma, degree or any certifications. But if I can > ever achieve one tenth of the knowledge that he had I would be happy. Titles > and letters after your name mean nothing, the only thing that matters is > what you can do, and that you never give up. It is absolutely true that, at the end of the day, knowledge and determination are what ultimately counts. But the origination of this thread was to choose one or the other (the cert or the degree). > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > l0stbyte > Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 3:16 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: CCIE Vs. BS or MS dergree [7:59481] > > Ladrach, Daniel E. wrote: > > > I have an MIS degree from The Ohio State University Max Fisher College of > > Business. I see some posts out there saying that a CS degree is no > > more than > > a vocational degree. Obviously this person has not been to college! > > College > > is not there to prepare you to step in and do a Sr. Engineer job, it is > > there to give you a base understanding of IT. I however, have a business > > degree with an IT focus. So, when you have been through the classes I have > > you form a level of respect for anyone who has been down the same road. > > > > When the CCIE gets as challenging as the following let me know. > > > > Calculus > > Physics > > Finance > > Accounting > > Economics > > CS-programming > > CS-operating systems > > CS-networking > > > > > > > > Daniel Ladrach > > CCNA, CCNP > > WorldCom > All of the listed should be thought in high school. Unless it's some > kind of quantum programming (is it still a concept?), CCIE should be by > far more challenging. My two cents.. > :) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60172&t=59481 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE Vs. BS or MS dergree [7:59481]
""Geoff Zinderdine"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I understand everything you said, and I agree that college coursework > should > > modernize, but I think you may be missing the point of a college > education. > > > > The point of a college education is not to prepare you to step into a job > > immediately. That is not its purpose, and never has been - even for such > > 'professional' degrees like engineering and CS. The purpose of the > college > > degree is to provide you with a a reservoir of general knowledge upon > which > > you can draw, as well as practice in life-skills such as problem-solving, > > critical thinking, and time-management. In essence, you learn how to > learn. > > In the abstract this is a nice thought and perhaps how things should work. > In practice, university seemed to me to be mostly about learning how to > impress a bevy of preening mandarins who have long since lost any relevance > to the world at large. By removing accountability, tenure enforces this > irrelevance. There are some wonderful teachers and amazing researchers to > be sure, but they tend to be focused in disciplines which are very much > practical in nature such as medicine which are preparing students for real > world tasks. > > The real reason that college programs are far behind the times > technologywise is not because of any noble liberal arts approach to > learning. It is because the people on the cutting edge of technology are > working for companies that can remunerate them better than schools. There > is no fundamental benefit to studying old technology over new outside of > inculcating some small sense of nostalgia for an age when you could almost > know everything about the field. At issue is a lack of people qualified to > teach at the cutting edge. I think you have made the mistake of restricting yourself just to the realm of technology - and rapidly moving technology at that. The vast realm of academia consists of subject matters that hardly change at all. To wit - in a hundred years, in the English major, Shakespeare will still be Shakespeare, in the political science major, Marx will still be Marx, in the psychology major, Freud will still be Freud, in the economics major, Adam Smith will still be Adam Smith, and in the physics major, thermodynamics will still be thermodynamics. Therefore there is tremendous benefit in studying the 'old masters' in these realms simply because they will be just as relevant today as they will be in the future. What exactly is the cutting edge in English, and is it really better than knowing Shakespeare? Again, forget about technology for a moment. Think about your world leaders - politicians, top businessmen, top authors/philosophers, whatever. I don't want people in those positions who know the latest RFC, I want people who have been grounded in the entire realm of human thought. That's not to say that I expect them to be able to recite Plato on a dime, but to at least have some exposure to a wide realm of logical and critical analysis. > > >They hire him because he has proven in > > college to be a hard-worker who knows how to think critically. This is > > these companies put such an emphasis on GPA - not because they actually > > think the subject matter has anything to do with the job, but because a > top > > GPA indicates a strong work ethic and a supple mind. > > That is generous. A high GPA indicates a strong work ethic and an ability > to coax the results that you want out of the system often by agreeing with a > prof whose theory you disagree with. This is a warped form of Kuhnean > "puzzle-solving". University does very little to encourage shifting > paradigms. In my short academic career I watched scholars rail against > paradigm shifts because they invalidated their life's work. Rather than > revising their disproven ideas they fought tooth and nail to preserve them. > Heaven help you if you contradict them. Supple, capable minds merely > *survive* formal education they aren't produced or even nursed by it. Uh, well, supple minds certainly aren't produced by a lack of education. Consider this - go to the not-so-good part of town where people tend not to be educated - how many supple minds do you think you're going to find? Now I do agree that universities often times do have a certain doctrinal bent, but on the other hand, I have found most universities to be more filled with independent thinkers than the average place. > > > To wit - look at the top management of any large company and notice how by > > and large everybody is a college graduate. Look at Congress - everybody's > a > > graduate. Clearly that means that there's something going on, and that > the > > degree isn't totally worthless. In fact, consider the case of the most > > famous dropout of all - Bill Gates, who himself has chosen to fill the > > entire ranks of Microsoft's top management with college graduates. Gates
Re: CCIE Vs. BS or MS dergree [7:59481]
""l0stbyte"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Ladrach, Daniel E. wrote: > > > I have an MIS degree from The Ohio State University Max Fisher College of > > Business. I see some posts out there saying that a CS degree is no > > more than > > a vocational degree. Obviously this person has not been to college! > > College > > is not there to prepare you to step in and do a Sr. Engineer job, it is > > there to give you a base understanding of IT. I however, have a business > > degree with an IT focus. So, when you have been through the classes I have > > you form a level of respect for anyone who has been down the same road. > > > > When the CCIE gets as challenging as the following let me know. > > > > Calculus > > Physics > > Finance > > Accounting > > Economics > > CS-programming > > CS-operating systems > > CS-networking > > > > > > > > Daniel Ladrach > > CCNA, CCNP > > WorldCom > All of the listed should be thought in high school. Unless it's some > kind of quantum programming (is it still a concept?), CCIE should be by > far more challenging. My two cents.. At the risk of causing a firestorm - I fail to see how the CCIE is more difficult than the above. What exactly is so complicated about the CCIE subject matter? There is nothing in there that I would say requires tremendous thought, with the possible exception of the funky syntax in the lab questions. > :) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60132&t=59481 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE Vs. BS or MS dergree [7:59481]
""Andrew Dorsett"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, nrf wrote: > > > updated. But I look askance at demands that colleges transform themselves > > into glorified vocational schools. If all they're doing is teaching the > > technology du-jour, and neglecting the building of fundamental thinking > > skills, then I think the heart of what higher education is really all about > > will be lost. > > I never said they they should turn into a vocational school. But look at > the CS curriculum in any university right now. It is exactly a vocational > school. I would take issue with this. Clearly I don't know what's happening at VaTech. But I can tell you what's happening at the CS departments at places like MIT, Stanford, Caltech and Berkeley. Yes, these places teach things that have a vocational bent. But there is always a great deal of theory and general knowledge-building as well. Practically all of these schools teach languages like SCHEME, Pascal, LISP, and the like - which are not exactly the most popular languages in the working world today, but are extraordinarily useful for teaching fundamental concepts. True, the schools then move on to things like Java and C, but the underlying tone of the curricula is always to understand theory and rigor - not just to slap together a bunch of code that will work but is computationally inelegant. The emphasis is therefore more on the theoretical, rather than the vocational, which is as it should be. >They teach you how to write code, how to design an app, and then > you do it. Yes in the meantime they spawn critical thinking. But the > problem I see is this. If they can teach programming, and they can teach > electronic design while still focusing on the learning as you stated, then > why can't they also teach network design. Look at it this way they can > teach anything in the world and still teach the "how to learn" deal you > brought > up. It's by asking students to solve problems. Like I said, there is significant room for improvement for college curricula. I agree that some school probably should foster a degree program that concentrates on networks. What I would say is that many schools offer an interdisciplinary choice where you can in essence create your own major. True, many times these programs are restricted to honors students or some other type of elite designation. But what I'm saying is that if you feel frustrated by what your school offers, you may want to create your own curricula. > > Yes, there is a mindset for engineers and lots of people are born with > those skills. I'll be the first to admit that my GPA is horrible, but if > you ask me to build you a network or write an application I will guarentee > I can do just as well as any other john doe off the street. GPA is not an > accurate way of showing excatly what I'm capable of. It only shows you > what > some professor thinks of me, or that I can barf up some some obscure fact > from a book thats over 400 pages. It doesn't show how much I can think or > how creative I am. It doesn't show you that I had a research project where > I designed a new protocol for ACL transfers. GPA is not a reflection of > abilities. It is a reflection of memorization ability for an exam. (I > can't even remember a single phrase in spanish but I did three > years of it in High-School and I got an A everytime) Here I have to take issue. GPA is clearly not a perfect indicator of ability - I never said that it was. There is no perfect indicator of ability. On the other hand, GPA is a pretty darn strong indicator of ability. Let's face it. The guy with a 4.0 probably worked harder and is brighter than the guy with a 2.0, all other things being equal (especially if they went to the same school and studied the same major). No guarantees of course. But the trend is clear. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the way statistics works to say otherwise. Obviously there are some geniuses who have poor GPA's. And there are some idiots who have good GPA's. But the fact is there are a disproportionate number of geniuses with high GPA's.It's like saying that smoking is dangerous (I hope you don't disagree with this). That's not to say that everybody who smokes will die young, and everybody who doesn't smoke will live a long life. But the trend is clear - smoking, on average, tends to hurt your health. Clearly I hope that if your kids ask you whether they should smoke, you are going to tell them not to, instead of giving them some spiel about how statistics are imperfect. Or, let me put it to you this way. You say that GPA is an imperfect indicator of ability, and I agree. Yet y
Re: CCIE Vs. BS or MS dergree [7:59481]
> Ok, I've been following this thread for a while now. I'm a student > currently working on my BS in Computer Engineering and I'll only be on my > soap box for a few minutes here. Colleges used to be on the bleeding edge > of technology and now they aren't anymore. I'm a network security engineer > by practice and I'm having to study programmming and electronic design. > Granted this is good and important, because I must understand how the > technology works but while I'm learning the 1970s art of electronic design > I'm missing out on the latest in network design. Currently colleges are > in the mindset that you must be a grad student to even attempt networking > and that is killing me. Look at how many universities offer MS and PhD > programs in Network Engineering, but find one popular university that > offers the same program to undergrads. > > I walked into a research lab full > of grad students that were using out-dated Cisco and Bay equipment to > study for their CCNA. They were amazed to find out I got mine while still > in High-School almost 3 years ago (Yes I'm due for recert in May). The > universities need to work on building programs in networking and computer > security at the level of Computer Science and Computer Engineering. Sure > you can argue Networking is a subset of both programs and thus a > specialization that must be obtained after your BS. However, if thats the > logic then therefore a Landscape Architecture student must first major in > General Architecture and then work on their MS in Landscape Design. Which > is not the case. > > Another problem is that there are absolutely ZERO > Network Security or Computer Security courses at the undergrad level in my > school (Virginia Tech). So we are letting all these programmers out the > door without ever teaching them buffer overflows, or other security > issues. And we wonder why every system built has security flaws out the > wazoo. Now > I've tried to take classes above my degree program and have been refused > admission in all cases and that is so fustrating. Because for me the only > way to stay up on technology is to do research on my own for no school > credit, or to take a job in the world and forget about school. Colleges > are running the shop like a bakery, if you don't fit the cookie cutter > you are either thrown away or smashed back into the dough with the rest of > the ginger-bread men. > > I have found one answerTutoring, I've started tutoring MS students in > Network Applications and hopefully next semester I'll start with some > Network Security tutoring. But that only provides person rewards and I'm > still paying the same $20K/year to learn stuff I picked up in High-School > in three years of Electronics and 4 years of Programming Design. > > And now with budget cuts its getting worse and they are scratching classes > right and left. I understand everything you said, and I agree that college coursework should modernize, but I think you may be missing the point of a college education. The point of a college education is not to prepare you to step into a job immediately. That is not its purpose, and never has been - even for such 'professional' degrees like engineering and CS. The purpose of the college degree is to provide you with a a reservoir of general knowledge upon which you can draw, as well as practice in life-skills such as problem-solving, critical thinking, and time-management. In essence, you learn how to learn. Consider this. The top Wall Street investment banks and management consultancies hire numerous students from a wide range of majors - and give preference to engineers. But why? What exactly does mergers&acquisitions have to do with Shakespeare? Or the philosophical theories of Rousseau? Or thermodynamic and quantum-mechanics equations? Answer - nothing. But that's not the point. Goldman Sachs doesn't hire somebody fresh out of college because they think he knows the gory details of how to close a billion-dollar stock offering. They hire him because he has proven in college to be a hard-worker who knows how to think critically. This is these companies put such an emphasis on GPA - not because they actually think the subject matter has anything to do with the job, but because a top GPA indicates a strong work ethic and a supple mind. To wit - look at the top management of any large company and notice how by and large everybody is a college graduate. Look at Congress - everybody's a graduate. Clearly that means that there's something going on, and that the degree isn't totally worthless. In fact, consider the case of the most famous dropout of all - Bill Gates, who himself has chosen to fill the entire ranks of Microsoft's top management with college graduates. Gates could have put whoever he wanted into those positions, so if the degree really wasn't valuable, don't you think Gates would have figured this out by now? If even Gates agrees, I would say that cl
Re: CCIE Vs. BS or MS dergree [7:59481]
""Carroll Kong"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > You are correct. For most people, I think acquiring a PhD is more > resources and time consumed than becoming a CCIE. Now, not to > belittle the CCIE, it is still probably one of the hardest lab > examinations in the IT field. However, all in all, for most people, > seems like the PhD would be harder. The issues on the CCIE, > ultimately is all in the router, all within Cisco's website. There > is no rocket science. Such a finite state of material to study > cannot possibly compare to the type of research of data for a PhD. > While the thinking level during the exam can be complex, does not > compare to some of the things I ran into in college. It is more > speed oriented and "have you tried all the combinations" and do you > know the "common gotchas." > > Sorry guys, I cut a bit out on everyone's responses to stay more > focused. While I do not have a PhD, just from reading it and seeing > others go for it, and realizing how many YEARS it takes to get it, I > agree, acquiring a PhD is probably much harder than acquiring the > CCIE. On average, a fairly bright guy can get the CCIE within a > year. If even more motivated, probably a few months (ignoring other > priorities and issues). Try that with a PhD. > > > Much like John mentions, comparing the two is like comparing apples > > and oranges. The material covered in each area is very different. > A > > PhD is much more theory oriented and there's a lot more of the > "why" > > types > > of thinking. I would just like to reiterate that the graduate degree (master's or PhD) provides you a whole lot more flexibility than the CCIE ever can. With a graduate degree, you can branch out far and beyond network engineering. To illustrate, take a look at Cisco's top management. You will find nary a one who carries a CCIE. On the other hand, you will find quite a few MBA's (John Chambers MBA- Indiana, Howard Charney - MBA Santa Clara, Keith Goodwin - MBA Wayne State, Sue Bostrom MBA Stanford, Richard Justice - MBA Stanford, Charles Giancarlo - MBA Harvard, Mike Volpi - MBA Stanford, ) , some MS degrees (Mario Mazzola, Manny Rivelo), and a law degree (Dan Scheinman, JD - Duke). And in fact, every single member of Cisco's top management holds a bachelor's. Supposedly the CCIE holds the most sway within Cisco itself (of course), but even Cisco apparently doesn't give it much credence if you ever want to enter top management. So, again, it really all depends on what you want. If you're perfectly cool with slinging boxes for the rest of your life, then by all means ditch college and just get the CCIE. But if you think you'll ever have any ambitions for anything else, get that degree. And, once again, I would reiterate that while you might be cool with slinging boxes now, 20 years later who knows how you'll feel? I constantly run into a lot of old-timers who regret not having gotten their education and are simply tired of taking orders from some 20-something manager. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60050&t=59481 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE Vs. BS or MS dergree [7:59481]
""bergenpeak"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Interesting question. Some thoughts from someone that does have a PhD
> in CS (dissertation in networking, a dozen or so publications, a handful
> in IEEE journals). I initially went into gradual school to teach and do
> research, but after spending two summers during grad school as an intern
> in industry, realized that I was much more interested in working in
> industry than staying in academia. When I completed my PhD, I took a
> job in
> industry.
>
> Much like John mentions, comparing the two is like comparing apples
> and oranges. The material covered in each area is very different. A
> PhD is much more theory oriented and there's a lot more of the "why"
> types
> of thinking. Obviously, this sort of questioning is needed and helps
> lead
> one to dissertation topics and an actual research question. Besides the
> initial reading list you get from your advisor, you're on your own to
> find related research, develop your ideas, verify that your work is
> unique,
> and then get it published before someone else stumbles across the same
> idea.
> And note, there are several hoops one needs to go through to get a PhD,
> and
> failing any one of these can cause you to get booted from your program.
> In order, these steps are:
>
> 1) pass your prelims which are a test of breadth of knowledge in all the
> main areas in your subject area. The way prelims where structured where
> I
> went to school, we had test and pass in 4 of 5 core areas (systems,
> languages,
> theory, algorithms, and architecture) and 4 non-core areas (networking
> fell into
> this space)
>
> 2) pass your comprehensives ("comps", test that you have detailed
> knowledge in the area you intend to do research). The format for comps
> is often a series of probing verbal questions asked by each member of
> your
> comittee that you answer in real-time.
>
> 3) pass your proposal (this is where you propose the topic/question you
> intend to research/solve. Besides a verbal defense, this requires a
> failry
> extensive document be written which details the existing research space,
> and how
> your work will fit in, etc.)
>
> 4) do the research and write up your dissertation
>
> 5) defend your dissertation. It's often easiest to prove your
> dissertation is
> worthy of a degree if you have many peer reviewed publications, so add
> lots of publications to step 4 above.
You forgot to mention another huge requirement to getting a PhD - simply
getting admitted in the first place. This encompasses a huge amount of work.
You can't just show up to a graduate program and start taking classes - you
have to actually win admission first, which requires that you graduate with
a bachelor's with decent grades, do well on the GRE, go through the
application process, demonstrate a facility for research (probably by
undergoing research projects while you're an undergrad), getting good rec's
from profs, etc. etc. And of course in order for you to have a bachelor's,
you have to win admission to an undergraduate school and all that that
entails (doing well in high school, doing well on the SAT, doing
extracurriculars, getting teacher rec's, blah blah blah).
Therefore, I believe that when you're comparing a HS grad with a CCIE, to
somebody with a PhD, then in terms of sheer effort, there's no comparison -
it's a no-brainer.
>
> I don't have a CCIE, so can't say for sure, but here's my take on doing
> the exams up to and including the CCIE written. Everyone gets the list
> of
> books to read, and if you know the information in these references,
> you'll
> pass the tests. Note that with commercial study guides, practice labs,
> practice tests, and courses geared specifically to pass these tests,
> there's
> plenty of external help available to help make it through the CCIE
> written.
> As far as I know, as long as your willing to pay, you can take the tests
> over and
> over again until you pass. This aspect is not true when working on a
> PhD.
And neither is it true of the bachelor's, or any other part of traditional
academia. Almost always, there are actual penalties and restrictions
associated with just attempting tests and classes over and over again until
you finally pass.
I believe Cisco should record on your CCIE number how many times you took to
pass it. Is that rough? Yeah. But hey, let's face it, a guy who took the
lab 20 times before he finally passed probably isn't as good as the guy who
passed it on his first time.
Somebody might say that a person might get lucky or unlucky and require more
or less attempts to pass (i.e. somebody who's really good might just get
unlucky and fail and therefore require a 2nd attempt, somebody who's really
bad might get lucky and pass on his first attempt). But hey, this is also
true of academia and everybody has learned to accept this. For example,
somebody who's really good academically might have a bad day and score
Re: CCIE Vs. BS or MS dergree [7:59481]
""Pcasey"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Interesting question, but I think the question of "which is tougher" and > "which is more valuable" get confused. > > As someone who has an MBA from a top school, I know that it took several > thousand of hours of work and an estimated 12,000 - 15,000 pages of reading. > I am in process on my CCIE, but so far it looks like it will only be a > fraction of that. I would add that people who are looking at only the work involved in getting a top-flight MBA don't see the whole picture. Not only do you need to figure in the work needed to obtain the MBA, you also have to figure in the work involved in getting admitted to a top program in the first place. For example, let's say you want to get an MBA from Harvard/Stanford/Penn/N'Western/whatever. Well, you can't just show up to class one day and demand that they start teaching you. You first have to be admitted - and let's face it, getting admitted to places of that caliber requires you to have done a whole lot of stuff beforehand. They ain't gonna admit just anybody. Therefore when you add in the work involved in simply getting admitted in the first place, in addition to the work involved in getting the degree, I think it's plain to see that the degree from a top school is many times more difficult than the CCIE could ever be. > > However, how hard it is really doesn't matter. The question is what you > want to do with your life and what you find interesting. Would being an > successful investment banker pay more than being a solid CCIE? Of course. > Would I hate my life? Of course. But, that is just my personal view. This is absolutely true, but I would also add the following. What makes you happy now may not make you happy in the future. Sure, you might like to be the network guy configuring boxes now, but there's no guarantee that this will still be true 20 years later. Maybe you'll still like it, but on the other hand, maybe you want to be the one in the nice office telling other people to configure boxes. Degrees are valuable because of their flexibility. If you want to make a change in your career path in the future, it is far easier to do so with a degree than with a cert. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59779&t=59481 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE Vs. BS or MS dergree [7:59481]
The thing about comparing degrees to certs is that they aren't totally comparable because they serve different purposes. The degree is designed to teach you general knowledge - basically to teach you how to think. Let's face it. The vast majority of college graduate use very little of what they actually learned in college. How many English majors really get jobs where they do critical analyses of Elizabethan poetry? How many math majors really spend the rest of their lives doing proofs and theorems? Yes, there are some (particularly those who choose careers in academia) but they are in the minority. The majority go into the working world and take jobs that have very little association with whatever they studied. But that's not really the point. Unless you really are going to be a professor, the goal of an English degree is not so that you can memorize Chaucer. The goal is to provide you with a solid grounding of general knowledge and training in critical thinking and creativity - skills that improve your productivity as a worker.College graduates on average make more money than non-graduates and this is prima-facie evidence that the college education enhances one's value even when doing a job that has little to do with whatever you studied Certs, on the other hand, make no bones about trying to provide you with a broad education. Certs are designed, ideally, to measure your knowledge of specific skills. Period. As stated by someone else on this thread, the CCIE may prove to be valuable in the network engineering profession, but has essentially zero value in any other profession. For example, you can't get your CCIE and then decide you wanna be an investment banker.But you can do that with an MBA. ""J.D. Chaiken"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > If that were the real reading list for a BS degree, I would *LOVE* it. My > problem is that they make you read all the fluffy stuff that you never > wanted to read in the first place, and didnt go to college for, but they > make you read anyway. > > And further, lets say you were an english major, do you really think that > Calculus I would help you there? > > Jarett > > ""Charlie Wehner"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > What's more difficult? > > > > a) Memorizing configuration scenerios and commands on a Cisco router > > > > b) Understanding Calculus, Differential Equations, Numerical Analysis, > > Chemistry, Physics and Electrical Engineering well enough to create a > > "meaningful" experiment. > > > > One of my friends is working on his masters in Physics right now. What > he's > > working on makes the CCIE look like a walk through the park. > > > > Seriously, what if the recommended reading list for the CCIE exam looked > > like this: > > > > Physics I and II > > Calculus I,II,III > > Differential Equations > > Mechanics > > Circuit Analysis I and II > > Linear Systems > > Thermodynamics > > Quantum Mechanics > > Optics Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59679&t=59481 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Off Topic but interesting - R&S networking future? [7:59553]
""J.D. Chaiken"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I would have to disagree with you on some of your points. More often > than not predictions turn out to be wrong. I believe this is incorrect, and I've actually talked about this with other people on this board. It's not that most predictions are incorrect. It's that most predictions are boring. Consider this. I can predict that if you smoke, you will injure your health. In fact, every doctor in the world will tell you that. But everybody already knows that smoking is unhealthy. So it's boring, and you will probably pay no attention. It's still a prediction though - it's not guaranteed that if you smoke, you will have bad health. The only time we pay attention to predictions are if they are, first of all, not boring, and second of all, if they're wrong. That's why we tend to think that many more predictions are wrong than they appear. It's that the obvious and boring predictions are quickly forgotten about. Consider a simple economic prediction. For example, I can predict that the US economy in the next 5 years is not going to be dominated by the steel industry. I doubt that anybody would disagree. It is possible that the economy will indeed be dominated by steel - but how likely is that? It's a boring prediction that nobody cares about, but still a prediction. >Take Wall street for a bad > example. There's no doubt in my mind that major changes will occur in the > IT industry. Of the dozens of new technologies that become available each > year, some of them will most certainly mature. Most of them will fail, and > if you could tell me exactly which ones would succeed then there's no point > in working at all. Just invest in the successful ones, rake in the money, > and do IT work for free because you love it. On the other hand, surely you will agree that some possible changes are a lot less likely than others. It is extremely unlikely that the world is going to be moving back to, say, Banyan Vines, for example. It is possible - but very very unlikely. It's all a matter of judging likelihoods. Obviously nobody has a crystal ball, but there is still common sense you can apply to ascertain which changes are likely to happen and which changes are not. > > I agree with you on some points though. In the US, I doubt there's > going to be a buildout boom anytime soon, and R&S skills may not be as > profitable now as they were just a few years ago. But by no means do I > think that the skills are not valuable. For the next couple of years I > believe that in order to prosper you'll need to develop other skills (as > with every industry, but especially with IT) . The skillset that Doctors > and Lawyers possessed 20 years ago is all but obsolete now; Which is why > they are required to continue their education with continuing education > courses. Right, and that's exactly my point. Unfortunately there still continue to be people who think that R/S is all they need in their toolkit. I think a lot of people want to believe it's still 1999. > > Remember that most of the world is still underdeveloped. Take China for > instance. if just 1% china went out and bought a computer and hoped to > connect to the internet, those R&S skills would be heavily in demand, > throw in all the developing former Iron Curtain nations, and the continents > of Africa and much of South America, and you have plenty of R&S job > openings. I have full faith in the power of capitalism, I'm certain that > eventually the undeveloped countries will develop, and they are going to > need qualified, experienced people to help them out. I would posit the situation where IP networking really does become plug&play and super-reliable - like the way electricity is today in the West. In such a case, a boom in IP buildout doesn't necessarily mean much of a boom (probably only a mild boom) in R/S skills - because IP networking was made easy. And furthermore, most of the boom in jobs would occur locally to where the buildout occurred. Just like if most of the Third World electrified itself, it wouldn't mean that electricians in the West would be sitting pretty. There would be more demand for electricians in Africa, but not really for more electricians in the United States. > > Security is hot this year, and next year it could be something else. > Working in the IT industry means that you will need to rebuild you entire > skillset every few years. I believe that Cisco realizes that, which is why > recertification is so important. It won't surprise me at all if the CCIE > tracks appear to converge a bit more in the next 3 to 6 years. Gone are the > days when you started
Re: CCIE Vs. BS or MS dergree [7:59481]
wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > That is a very interesting question for me; Yestarday I went for a lunch > with a friend that got his MS on Economy, and I asked him: > > - What do you think it would be better? Either use my time and energy to > get certificate or go for a MS or MBA? > > He said: > > - Absolutely go to the Certification process. > > I asked him why, and he told me: > > - I just started to teach a certification course for professionals in > Economic. It is an international certification, like the CCIE. The people > who are taking this course could take a MBA or MS, because it is so > expensive and time consuming as the others. But they need to take the > certification because of its rigorous exam. > > I think the same is for the networing area. Will the MS represent that > you has a good acknowledgment of an area? Unfortunately I know there are > schools where you can finish the course without really knowing that much. I think a more fair comparison to make is to compare the CCIE vs. a degree from a prestigious school. I agree that getting a master's from a no-name place isn't going to do much for you. Also, it should be understood that often times it is not really the point to learn something while you're at school - the real value is in meeting people and getting access to a wide range of contacts. Why is the MBA from Harvard so coveted? Because it gives you entree to perhaps the most select and powerful group of alumni in the world. Let's face it - in the business world, it's not really what you know, it's who you know. > > At other side, it is really important, for all the explanations that was > given, that you get also your BS and MS. > > > > > > > "Mic shoeps" @groupstudy.com em 18/12/2002 15:37:59 > > Favor responder a "Mic shoeps" > > Enviado Por: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > cc: > > Assunto:CCIE Vs. BS or MS dergree [7:59481] > > > Hello > > I've been arguing with a collegue of mine which one would be tougher to > achieve. I told him that it would be much more harder to have a computer > science or a networking degree (you have to take the GRE and complete 2 or > 3 > years of school works) than a CCIE, but my collegue think other wise. He > literally believes that having a CCIE is equivalent of having a Ph.d in > Networking. I'd like to hear your thought. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59552&t=59481 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CCIE Vs. BS or MS dergree [7:59481]
""Steve Dispensa"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I've been arguing with a collegue of mine which one would be tougher to > > achieve. I told him that it would be much more harder to have a computer > > science or a networking degree (you have to take the GRE and complete 2 or > 3 > > years of school works) than a CCIE, but my collegue think other wise. He > > literally believes that having a CCIE is equivalent of having a Ph.d in > > Networking. I'd like to hear your thought. > > I have a BA and have been blocked for a number of years on my MS in comp > sci. The > CCIE cert has meant much more to my career than any of the school-related > stuff, in > a direct sense: it allows me to get jobs/engagements/etc, and none of the > jobs i'm > interested in have required completion of the MS. > > If you were more interested in theoretical work, or perhaps with some > employers > (with dubious ability to evaluate a candidate), the degrees would be much > more > important. > > This *only* applies in the field of computer networking, though. If you > want to do > anything else, the CCIE is pretty worthless. Even in the networking world, > the > thought leadership doesn't much care about certs - witness IETF, NANOG, etc > - nobody > there mentions or cares about CCIE. > > Also, i have found in my career that many CCIEs (to say nothing of the rest) > don't > have a sound theoretical grounding at all. Things you learn in CS school > really > are important - queuing theory, optimization problems, statistics, problem > complexity, > and even (in particular) programming. You don't truly understand network > protocols > until you've done network programming IMHO. > > CCIE is a certification for people who like to get their hands dirty with > routers. > CCIEs are the best in the world at fixing broken networks, setting up new > ones, and > so on. They're *not* necessarily any good at anything else. This is a big > difference > from a Ph.D. or MS, which imply a solid, broad theoretical base in addition > to an area > of expertise. That's probably the best response I have heard all year. I would just add that the degree also significantly helps you if you have aspirations to rise in the managerial ranks, especially if you ever want to carry the title of CxO. That's not to say a degree is absolutely strictly required for such positions, but it's almost de-rigueur - you will find practically no managers at a high level in any large company who doesn't have at least a bachelor's (with perhaps the notable exception of them having founded the company themselves).Therefore the real question you need to ask yourself is do you still wanna be slinging boxes in 20 years, or do you wanna be ordering other people to sling boxes for you?Well, maybe you'll like slinging boxes 20 years later, but maybe you won't - who knows? The degree gives you valuable career flexibility. > > -sd > (CCIE #5444) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59515&t=59481 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Off Topic but interesting - R&S networking [7:59390]
""Aaron Ajello"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > IMHO, comparing COBOL and mainframes to networking as a valuable, marketable > skill set doesn't follow. COBOL was replaced by VB, C++, ASP and other > languages. Mainframes were replaced by things like Windows, UNIX and > Linux. I don't know of something that will replace networking. I'm not > saying it's impossible, but the comparison doesn't seem right. Cisco could > get replaced, but how is networking going to be replaced? Even if > everything goes wireless, it's still all networked, no? Networking will be 'replaced' in the sense that it will fade into the background. Eventually, networking will be just as reliable as, say, electric power in your building. It will be just another utility. But when that happens, you really don't need engineers very much. You just plug something into a wall socket and it works. OK, if you wanna rewire a building or something, yeah you gotta call an electrician. But how many times does that happen? > > Several people have said R/S isn't such a valuable skill set anymore because > people aren't building networks anymore. Maybe that's true, but it reminds > me of what someone said when the machine gun was invented. He said it was > so powerful and destructive that it would bring an end to war. also, didn't > bill gates say one time that no one would ever need a hard drive bigger than > 16meg, or something like that? I don't follow. If people aren't building networks anymore (and they are not for the total number of networks is actually decreasing now, mostly due to bankrupt providers getting liquidated), then that necessarily means less demand for network people. And even if the number of networks remained the same, that still implies less demand compared to a few years ago when networks were being built out. Let's face it. You need more people and more expertise to build a network than to maintain it. That's not to say that you don't need any expertise to maintain a network, because you obviously do, but you need less of it. And again, I would point to the fact that the many, dare I say the majority of predictions, actually turn true. Would you tell your kid today to pursue a career in, say, steel? I didn't think so. But, hey, you could use the same arguments to say that nobody can predict the future with certainty, therefore steel might be a great career, etc. etc. And indeed it might be a great career. But, really now, what are the odds? > > It seems like every time I pick up a tech magazine it's talking about ip > telephony, internet connected toasters, high speed web enabled cell phones, > etc. yeah, yeah, yeah, I know what someone is going to say- "the > infrastructure is already in place to connect your toaster to the > internet." But won't more and more internet connected devices necessitate > more people who know how to connect those things and make them work together > quickly, reliably and smoothly? Not necessarily - not if everything is truly plug+play and reliable. Ease of use and reliability implies less need for expertise. Let's be perfectly honest. The fact that IP networks are still somewhat difficult to configure and also somewhat unreliable is actually kind of a good thing, because it means that companies need to keep network guys around. While we may say that we want a super-reliable and easy to use network, the fact is, we don't really want that. For example, consider this. The latest IT boom implied a massive increase in the use of electricity. But did that imply a giant boom for electricians? Hardly. The reason is simple. Electricity is, for the most part, plug and play, and reliable. You take all your new-fangled systems, plug them into the wall, and they work. OK, true, there was some increase in demand for electricians, especially for datacenters and whatnot, but the increase was mild. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not trying to bag on electricians. I have several friends who are electricians, and I respect their profession and their skill. I'm just using them as an example of the way I think things are eventually going to go in networking. There will still be jobs, but not as many as there are today, and the jobs that will be out there will be for higher-end people, with limited for the novices. Just like the way electricians are today. > > I think at this point in the evolution of info systems, the internet and > networking it's premature to say anything has reached it's peak and is > mature. Think of all the homes out there not connected to the internet. > Think of all the companies out there still not using networks and info > systems. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59460&t=59390 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations t
Re: Off Topic but interesting - R&S networking future? [7:59459]
> Definitely. Janitors now use vacuum-cleaners as well as brooms. > Telephone operators now use keyboards, not patchcords. Networkers will > need to know more than just layers 2 and 3. But there will be a > continued demand for R/S as part of the networkers job. I think you just said the key word right there, the word "part" - it will just be part of a job. Not like today or the recent past where R/S was a job all in itself. > > Another point is that bandwidth is not necessarily cheap all over the > world, Europe is more expensive than the US, and Asia even worse, so > engineering is required, in fact surely "traffic engineering" is all the > rage at the moment. Europe may be more expensive than the US, but European providers still have far too much bandwidth than the market demands. After all, look at what happened to KPNQwest. Actually I find traffic-engineering to be of little importance in today's market as a whole, except in certain pockets like in Asia. Most providers in the world just shrug their shoulders at traffic-engineering. > > I guess what I want to say is that when an economy is booming, people > unrealistically believe it's forever and they will be millionaires by > next June. Conversely when the economy is in a trough then people get > gloomy and believe that they'll never pay off their credit card bills. > Neither view is realistic. R/S is not dead, it's sleeping and will wake > up. Granted there will not be the insane rush into network builds that > we saw a few years ago but the wireless boom is around the corner Is that the same wireless boom that has basically bankrupted every European telco? > > rgds > Marc Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59459&t=59459 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Off Topic but interesting - R&S networking future? [7:59390]
""Marc Thach Xuan Ky"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > A few points: > When I was fresh in the IT industry (over 20 years ago) the old-timers > who had been working maybe four years already would tell me that there > was no future in programming, after all they said, who uses a chauffeur > now that cars are so easy to drive? > Cars need very little maintenance now, there are still plenty of > mechanics because there are more cars. > Phone companies still employ a lot of telephone engineers, large > corporates often have on-site telephone staff. There are more phone > companies now. Voice is a commodity. > Here in London during the 80's property boom, electricians and plumbers > on the large contracts were being paid a lot more than any network > engineer I heard of at the time. I would just add that many times (actually, more often than not, predictions actually turn out to be correct). For example, decades ago, people predicted a decline in the number of jobs in farming. And indeed the number of jobs in farming declined substantially. People also predicted a huge decline in the number of jobs in old-school manufacturing - steel, mining, etc. And indeed that came to pass. And even for those jobs that didn't decline, there was significant change in what they did. Mechanics can't just know how to fix carburetors, now they have to understand fuel-injection. IT has always been an industry of change. What was hot at one point of time may not be hot at another. IBM mainframe skill was in big demand back in the 70's, and it has been on a slow decline ever since. COBOL was also huge back then, and enjoyed a brief resurgence due to y2k, but is now declining. I believe R/S skill will fade into the background because quite simply not as many organizations are building out new networks anymore, nor do they really need to. The networks are built with most likely only incremental buildouts in the near-future, and so now the question is what are you going to do with the network. That is what is going to get you jobs. For those of you who are still waiting for another huge network buildout boom, well, sorry to tell you, but that train has left the station. > rgds > Marc Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59390&t=59390 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Off Topic but interesting - R&S networking future? [7:59347]
""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Perhaps your most important point is at the end, but I'd like to > amplify on it. The idea of a converged public Internet is probably > not achievable. I prefer to call service providers that move packets > "IP Service Providers," as opposed to "Internet Service Providers." > It's more accurate, and reflects the very different availability and > QoS requirements of applications, balanced against costs. Yes, absolutely. And it also has to do with security as well - especially as it relates to accountability. On the Internet, people have the presupposition of anonymity which, while important, also can be used a shield by criminals like hackers. A private IP network carries little presupposition of anonymity, so if you're a customer of a private network and you're committing mischief, it is much easier to find out who you are and terminate your connection. There is no God-given right to a private IP network connection the way there is with the Internet. > > Right now, a lot of world-class router designers are unemployed or > underemployed, because there is so much optical overcapacity that > sophistication isn't needed, especially with private networks. This is also true and hurts not just world-class designers, but network engineers of all stripes. Moore's Law churns inexorably and so do advances in optical technology. Things like QoS matter less when you can cheaply throw bandwidth at a problem. Things like voice over IP matter less when it's inexpensive to have lots of separate networks. The ability to carefully engineer and tweak your network is relatively less important when bandwidth is plentiful and it therefore doesn't really matter if your traffic takes suboptimal paths. > Much > of this, of course, is the current economy, which I do expect to turn > around. From my IETF/IRTF work, I do know that the current global > routing system isn't going to grow forever with the BGP paradigm, and > the best replacement is still a research problem. Luckily, I'm able > to keep a hand in that. I think more thought needs to go to how to turn an IP network into a profitable service. For all the problems of ATM, one indisputable thing about it is that it actually creates profitable services. I think there has been too much emphasis on developing 'cool' IP technologies and not enough has been made on creating profitable IP technologies. > > We are a long way from having every application run on a commoditized > transport. I'll freely say that more of my income, these days, comes > from both network and application architecture for bleeding-edge (a > phrase the surgeons HATE) medical systems. Now, some people here say > you need host as well as network experience. While I'm reasonable at > UNIX, there's also the aspect of being able to communicate with the > users of particularly challenging applications. I speak fluent > Doctor, which helps greatly, and can actually contribute to the > clinical application designs. > > Don't assume that you necessarily have to have extra computer skills > (e.g., server administration). Understanding an application area > from its user perspective can generate lots of work, be that > application telephony, medicine, law, etc. I have a friend who has > developed a specialty in automating car dealerships, and he has more > work than he can handle. My point was not to say that you necessarily need to have strong server knowledge. My point was that you needed to stretch beyond R/S. Anybody who tries to live on R/S alone is living on borrowed time. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59347&t=59347 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Off Topic but interesting - R&S networking future? [7:59302]
> > CL: OTOH, there are plenty of guys driving around in their trucks doing just > that. I don't know the typical annual income for Joe the plumber or Bill the > electrician ( and just so the PC people don't get on my case, I have yet to > meet Mary or Jill in those lines of business ) but I believe there are more > of them today than there were a decade ago. In other words, the downwards > pressure on salaries will continue longer term. Again, I didn't say that there would be no demand for plain-vanilla networking people, I said there would be less. Just like there still is demand for electricians and plumbers - but it's not like every company needs one (or several) on staff. Rather, I think the electrician/plumber model will be what networking will turn into.Landlords might have a few of these guys to handle all their properties (where they can amortize the salaries across their various real-estate holdings). But small to medium sized company won't have anybody on staff - when something breaks, they'll just whip out the Yellow Pages and 'call the IP guy'. This is a far cry from today when most companies of any size need a network guy. Net effect - less total jobs for networking. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59302&t=59302 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Off Topic but interesting - R&S networking future? [7:59275]
""dre"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > ""nrf"" wrote in message ... > > The biggest problem with broadband? Simple. There is no mass-market > > app that actually requires broadband. Most people are perfectly > > happy with dial. After all, what do they do on the Internet - > > surf a few pages, send a few emails, do some instant messaging - > > all low-impact apps. Most regular people (who are mostly > > nontechnical) simply don't see why they should pay more and put > > up with a less reliable technology in order to do the things they > > do a little faster. And again, it's not because they don't know > > what it means to have a fast connection. A lot of these people > > work in offices that have good connections, and yet they still > > don't want it for themselves. Essentially all of the technical > > people (the geeks) who want broadband have already gotten it, the > > trick now is to somehow convince all the nontechnical people that > > broadband is worth it. I hope somebody will finally invent something > > that will actually convince the masses that broadband is good, for > > otherwise the telco depression will go on and on. > > Wow nrf, you were totally dead-on correct until the last paragraph. > Need for R/S skills is gone, and basically is not coming back - that's a > fact. > > However, broadband is going to continue to have strange offerings > with different apps all the time. Sure, most poeple only use email, > surfing, and maybe IM today (for which dial works fine). But you > are seemingly waiting for something to be invented. It's already > invented. SIP, IM, Presence - these things exist today (and yes, > I'm aware that maybe it's best if they don't work over the Internet > and instead on private IP networks). But why can't more and more > broadband connections actually be private IP networks (as well as > maybe Internet access)? Why aren't people utilizing MPEG-4 in the > way that some (college students at least) are using MP3? I don't > own cable, but I can easily download all the episodes of Soprano > to my home computer over my broadband connection. Why do I need > cable or satellite now? Do I need a VCR, PVR, DVR, DVD, etc? Do > I need a receiver? Do I even need a television? Do I even need a > telephone? > > This isn't your standard plumbing. You don't load new bits into > the bottom of your sink and instantly upgrade your plumbing to > faster, more converged services. It doesn't work like that. > Broadband does. > > So you keep waiting for things that are already invented (SIP, > MPEG-4, 3G, Bluetooth, IEEE 1394, P2P, etc) to catch on. The rest > of us will be paying less money and simplifying our lives. The > trick isn't to invent a new technology, but it's to get the average > person to be able to embrace the technology that's already out > there. I am hardly waiting for somebody to invent something. I am well aware that there are many cool and killer things out there that are served very well by broadband. But you hit it right on the head - it's all about getting people to embrace that technology, which is by no means inevitable. The road to technology nirvana is littered with cast-off inventions that were technically wonderful but for some reason never garnered a mass audience. There is certainly nothing inevitable about the masses adopting some new technology no matter how cool it is. And even if it is ultimately adopted, another relevant question is whether it will be adopted quickly enough to justify the capital investments that were made? Because if not, then the telco depression is going to linger for even longer than it already will. Telcos don't just build out broadband infrastructure just 'for fun', they do it because they are banking their business on garnering a rate of return in a reasonable amount of time. When the payoff period gets pushed further and further out, then that makes the original investment less and less appealing. At some point (which I think we have reached and probably surpassed), the investment is unprofitable. Broadband penetration is nowhere near the levels needed to make it profitable. This not only damages existing telcos/MSO's even further than they are already, this discourages further investment into broadband. I know if I was a telco exec I would be leery about investing in broadband, simply because I see all my competitors going to the broadband poorhouse and I don't want that to happen to me. It all comes down to money. Businesses invest in things that make money and disinvest in things that lose money. Un
Re: Off Topic but interesting - R&S networking future? [7:59262]
""Henry D."" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Since we're just throwing out our thoughts here... > > I tend to disagree, following your logic, if the IP network > becomes such a commodity, I think this would just create more > jobs for people like us, I mean R/S guys. Hardly. The total jobs in a commoditized world would be much less. That's not to say there will be zero jobs, just less. Again, consider the case of electric power. Or water. How many companies, unless they're huge, have an electrician or a plumber on staff? OK, every once in awhile the company's toilet will back up and you gotta bring somebody in. But for the most part, electricity and water just work. You plug something in a wall socket and it works. You flush the toilet and it works. You certainly don't need to keep somebody on staff to take care of electricity and water, unless maybe you're really really big and you can amortize the guy's salary over lots and lots of facilities. Net effect - less demand for R/S skills. Consider the new initiatives that Cisco is trying to retrench themselves into the service-provider environment (again). Things like NSF, GRIP, and things like that to increase reliability of gear. Hey, that's real good for Cisco, but that ultimately means that as IP networks become more reliable, they just fade into the background and become a commodity, just like electricity. Let's be perfectly honest. A network that is super-reliable and super-redundant is a network that doesn't really need you around to babysit it. Ok, they might need to bring in a consultant whenever they want to make changes. But again, the net effect is less overall R/S jobs. >You seem to think that once the IP > network > is used for the services such as Voice, the Voice people > will have taken the jobs. Either the existing voice people or other people who add VoX to their skillset. >This may be so to some degree. But from the > last few years of my experience, I doubt there will be a data network > acting as reliably as PSTN any time soon - as you mention about > broadband. Naturally not anytime soon. But the long-term trend is clear. IP networks will become more and more reliable, which ultimately means that they will fade more and more into the background. >For this reason, I think R/S folks with few extra skills > will still be in demand for the telcos, someone has to keep on making > this thing work, fixing, upgrading, estimating, reporting, understanding > data networks, etc. Again, I never said there will be zero demand. But there will be less. Right now, R/S skill demand is unusually heightened because the fact is that IP networks are still pretty flaky, and so you need a bunch of guys around just to keep the darn thing up. The less flaky it is, the less people you need to babysit it. > > I agree that VOIP on the Net will not change how the telcos work. > It's one thing to have a customer use the Internet for placing calls, > the customer's expectations are already set low, knowing the Quality will > not be as great. But when you pick up the receiver at home, you expect > current quality, no delays, no noise, no whatever. Internet is simply too > unpredictable for Carrier class Voice. Yes, and so I expect private IP networks to take over. Convergence upon the Internet is most likely a red herring Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59262&t=59262 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Off Topic but interesting - R&S networking future? [7:59245]
""The Long and Winding Road"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > right up NRF's alley. Certainly for those considering their futures, > something worth considering as part of the mix. > > http://cookreport.com/11.10.shtml > > Can't afford the un-snipped version right now, but since I work for a telco, > and I recognize the issues described, and have read all the top corporate > executive e-mails that are doled out to us worker bees, I enjoyed the > counter arguments presented here. There are two parts to this report that I think bear mentioning. One is the future of VoIP. The other is the value (or lack thereof) of present broadband rollouts. VoIP is certainly transforming the way that the PSTN will operate, if slowly (very very slowly). Note, I didn't say voice over the Internet, but rather voice over IP. I believe, for numerous reasons, telcos will choose not to merge their phone services to the Internet, but will rather build out an IP network through which they will deliver services. Stick a telephony feature server on top of a functioning IP network (again, not the Internet, but a private IP network), and you now have a phone system. But that further speaks to the commoditization of IP skills in general and R/S skills specifically. IP networks will simply become a utility, like electric power. How many electric power engineers does a typical company have? Unless you're the electric company, probably zero - electricity is just something that reliably comes out of the wall socket and you use it to plug in your refrigerator. The value-add (ergo the jobs) will go to the people who understand the services that can be layered on top. That's not to say that there will be no jobs for people who know R/S (and only R/S), only that there will be less of them and they will be less pay for them. I do not see a bright future for R/S skills as the IP network becomes more and more commoditized. About broadband - it is absolutely true that the telcos have basically provided something that consumers do not want. Yet I disagree with the idea that the telcos simply need to provide a more symmetric offering to entice consumers. In my experience, consumers do not want broadband regardless of whether it is assymetric or symmetric or whatever. The 2 problems with broadband? Price and reliability. Let's face it, dial is reliable, whereas broadband can and does goes down for weeks at a time (happened to me a bunch of times). Furthermore, the Hart/Winston study showed that most people think that $40-50 a month is too much money to pay. No wonder that despite the fact that broadband is now available at over 80% of households, the take rate for broadband is less than 15% where it is available. Here is the Hart/Winston study. Yes, it's a year old, but not a whole lot has changed in a year. The most damning quote: "Forty-eight percent have no interest regardless of price and another 21 percent are willing to pay at most $20 per month..." http://www.comptel.org/press/nov29_2001_voices.html The biggest problem with broadband? Simple. There is no mass-market app that actually requires broadband. Most people are perfectly happy with dial. After all, what do they do on the Internet - surf a few pages, send a few emails, do some instant messaging - all low-impact apps. Most regular people (who are mostly nontechnical) simply don't see why they should pay more and put up with a less reliable technology in order to do the things they do a little faster. And again, it's not because they don't know what it means to have a fast connection. A lot of these people work in offices that have good connections, and yet they still don't want it for themselves. Essentially all of the technical people (the geeks) who want broadband have already gotten it, the trick now is to somehow convince all the nontechnical people that broadband is worth it. I hope somebody will finally invent something that will actually convince the masses that broadband is good, for otherwise the telco depression will go on and on. > > -- > TANSTAAFL > "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch" Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59245&t=59245 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: callmanager 3.3 [7:59160]
Nah, not yet. Soon. ""supernet"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Several months ago, Cisco TAC told me that CallManager 3.3 would be > released in Nov. this year. Is it out yet? I don't see it in Cisco > download area. Thanks. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59161&t=59160 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Hello (long response) [7:58843]
While I disagree with the harshness of Adrian's posting, I have to say that I do agree with the crux of his argument. No - not the part about firing people before Christmas. The part I have to say that I absolutely agree with him about is that people who just know R/S and only R/S really do need to pick up additional skills on the market. Although even I would never have said it the way Adrian said it (and anybody who knows me knows that I don't mince words), the fact of the matter is that R/S is indeed a tremendously saturated skillset and people who know only that are living on borrowed time. Let's face it, loads of ISP's are going bankrupt and enterprises are no longer building out networks, so the fact is the world just doesn't need as many R/S guys as it used to. ""Kevin C McCarty"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Brian, > > Adrian, is lacking in couth/class/tact that is for sure. Maybe he can;t > find that in /root/home/manners. He is the depiction of dangerous when > it comes to security. I really doubt that the level he plays on covers > anything important, after all, any security person knows that indeed > Checkpoint does suck. If you wake up in the morning and have to check the > CERT advisories on your product I wouldn't use it. I forget the number > of actual holes and snippets of code that would cause compromise, but the > Black Hat community tore it up nicely. Honestly if his consulting > company offered a Checkpoint solution I would think about how valuable my > solution would be compared to the actual cost of my data and the time I > would need to find another job after the SAN and all Raids were wiped, and > I was facing legal incriminations from an invalidated contract stating I > would "secure" my clients Enterprise. > > > > Maybe Adrian ought to start his own religion, no wait, someone already did > that. Wasn't it WANG or something like that? > > > Firing people because they don;t know software that is GNU/OpenSource is > ridiculous. Maybe they used HP Openview instead of nmap. What expert in > his right mind would have a FW do http load balancing?Sounds like > mister groovy security guy needs to take a few steps back and see how > stupid he sounds. Maybe we should give him a break. Sounds like he's > pissed cause he started 30k less than the gang of four and realized he was > duped into doing his bosses dirty work, that way if the former 4 sue the > company the boss is not to blame. > > Come on Adrian, use a real mail address. > > > I started the flame on this one, didn't I ? > > > Thanks-- > > Kevin McCarty > > Computer Sciences Corporation > Defense Sector > > "Obstacles are those annoying little bumps that occur when you take your > eyes off your goals" > > Henry Ford > > > > > "Brian T. Albert" > Sent by: nobody > 12/09/2002 03:37 PM > Please respond to "Brian T. Albert" > > > To: "adrian jones" , "elping" , > "Louis Young" , , > > cc: "Chuck Church" > Subject:RE: Hello (long response) > > > Sounds like your boss should be doing the house cleaning and not you. > Instead of firing 4 CCIEs, maybe because your God's gift to networking you > should mentor, train, and teach instead of strut around with your nose up > in > the air. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > adrian jones > Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 3:17 PM > To: elping; Louis Young; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Chuck Church; Security > Subject: Re: Hello (long response) > > > Elping, > Please do NOT make any statements regarding CheckPoint Firewall without > knowing all the facts. I've been working with both Checkpoint and Pix > firewalls. I > even build a few "franken" pix firewalls so that I can learn as much as I > can about > Cisco Pix firewalls. The "franken" pix firewall actually help me landed > my > current job > that pays 100k/year. Both CheckPoint and Pix firewalls have its strength > and > weaknesses. I agree that Cisco TAC is much superior than CheckPoint > support. > The "no text configuration" that you refer to in CheckPoint, you must be > refered to > running CheckPoint on Winblows platforms. NEVER RUN FIREWALL ON A > GENERAL PURPOSE OPERATING SYSTEM. If you worry about cost, check out > CheckPoint SecurePlatform. If you are "unix" literate, does the term > "tcpdump" > mean anything to you? That's how you troubleshoot my friend. > Now if you are talking about cost, Cisco Pix will beat CheckPoint by a > long > shot in > term of performance for your $. However, for a small/medium business, > Checkpoint > does come with a lot of features such as URL filtering (native), http load > balancing, > etc which Pix doesn't have (without 3rd party products). For enterprise > environment, > CheckPoint does come with ClusterXL (aka, load-sharing or Active/Active > Firewall), > which again, Pix doesn't support. Last but not least, Ch
Re: CCIE cert. opinion [7:58805]
""Karl Thrasher"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi, > > I recently took the CCIE written. I didn't pass, but I really wasn't > expecting to. I missed it by 6 points. A while back when the beta was > running, I was just getting ready to begin studying for the written when I > found out the beta was on. I found out about the beta on a Wed. and the beta > run ended on that Friday. So to evaluate myself, I paid the 50 bucks and > took the test with no study. I missed it by about 6 points then as well. I > thought, considering my level, at the time, it was not too bad and > definately attainable. > > I had to put my study off for a while after the beta attempt because of a > project I had to get up to speed on and then recently started studying. I > studied for a few weeks then took it to re-evaluated where I stand now. > > I saw on the board some people complaining about questions being too product > specific. I saw little to no types of those questions. My test was mainly > theory and heavy configuration and troubleshooting questions. Yes, some of > the test is a test of your memory but what test isn't? Is there a test that > exists that to some degree does not test your memory? And, yes, some of the > information tested is sort of trivial in aspect, but the ultimate goal is > not to pass the exam but to pass the lab. While studying the technologies > for the written, studying that "trivial" information, you pick up alot of > things you didn't know, or things you once knew but forgot. I think the > better you do on the written the better you'll do on the lab. Not to say > that a good score on the written will guarantee a passing lab attempt at > all. But I think the more you study for your written, you will be all that > much more prepared to study for your lab. > > I think I'm in pretty good shape. I have no pressure to pass as far as money > goes when taking the tests, because my GI Bill will pay for all written and > lab attempts, pass or fail. Plus I teach Cisco stuff during the day on 5 > racks that Cisco donated to the college. So even when I'm not studying, I > am. Plus the network I work on at my regular job has about 30,000+ Cisco > devices. So I think all these "pluses" will equal a CCIE R&S cert one of > these days. If not I will be dissapointed in myself. But I'm pretty > confident right now. > > I noticed someone else mention that a down-side of the exam is that someone > could take the written as many times as they wanted until eventually > passing. I could do that, but I don't want to waste my money. I'm not going > to attempt it again until I think I've picked up about 20 points. Although > my GI Bill will pay for my tests and lab, I have finite funds and I want to > save my money for the labs. But I don't think that just because that you can > take the test as often as you like will cause the market to be flooded with > CCIE's. Most people are persueing the CCIE cert because of money: they want > more. People have fininte funds. It is absolutely an issue because for many people, it's not their money. And it's not specific to the CCIE, but to all cert exams that just allow you to attempt it over and over again without penalty. Let me present to you a specific example. Consider the case of resellers. Practically all of them have some kind of certification requirement for X number of Cisco,Microsoft, Oracle, Novell, or whatever certified people, and this gets audited by the vendors. Now, many resellers have a much more pressing problem, which is simply surviving financially, so they don't really have time to be worrying about cert requirements. But when the audit day starts breathing down their necks, everybody knows what happens - there is a mass burst of people going to Prometric. Obviously the ideal thing to do would be for the reseller to send people to proper training classes and then give those people good hands-on experience before sending somebody to take a cert exam. But of course this is the real world, where dollars matter. Companies are going to choose the most expedient method to get things done, and if that means cutting corners, then so be it. What's more cost-effective - paying $3000 and taking an engineer out of commission for 5 days for training and then having that person attempt the cert exam for another $300 (and another afternoon), or just sending that person to Prometric every day for 5 days for $300 each? You tell me what you would do. The net result - the reseller passes its audit but there is also a whole slew of paper-'s in the world. >It's not too bad to take the test several > times but when you give the lab several pops that adds up. I'll bet there > are alot of folks out there that have given up because of the money it would > take them or because they have already spent too much money on their failed > attempts. There are probably many, many more people that don't have the > funds to take the test and lab as
Re: Enterprise technologies [7:58493]
""dre"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > ""nrf"" wrote in message.. > > > > What ATM did was simple. It gave customers a circuit that was > > almost good as leased while still providing for multiplexing, and > > the cost-savings associated with that, to the provider. In short, > > providers could now provide leased lines without actually having > > to provide leased lines. > > Back when we rolled out ATM networks, especially on Internet > backbones, I got this feeling of, "why are customers paying for > this when they could be doing this themselves?". I feel the same > way about today's networks, only moreso. In Japan, building networks > into and out of the country doesn't work. In Japan, a lot of > business doesn't flow right. It's because they have too many > middle-men. All the long-haul circuits across the Pacific go to > Singapore. Why? No middle-men. Without knowing much about Japan, I would say that from what you just told me, it would make perfect sense for a Japanese customer to purchase network services from somebody else rather than do it themselves, because the customer doesn't want to deal with the headache of all these middlemen. Let the provider deal with it. But again, since I know little about Japan, I will have to withhold judgment. > > > Proof of the power of that is simple - look at the tremendous > > profit that ATM generates, both natively and as a basis for the > > other 'semi' leased line, FR (which is usually carried by ATM). > > I agree, Service Providers make money off of voice. They make ok > margins off of ATM and/or FR overlays (you're right, most FR is ATM > Interworking). They lose money on Internet. But some businesses > do make money on selling Internet. It's not universal like you > say. It's not universal. But by and large most businesses lose money on the Internet. And those that actually do make money are those who have Internet "end-products". They certainly aren't carriers, who have been losing money hand-over-first providing Internet transport. Let's face it. Internet transport is a commodity with little (at least so-far) value-add to be offered, and it's extremely difficult to profit from a commodity product. Will somebody be able to figure out how to generate such profit in the future? I hope so. But it hasn't happened yet, not consistently anyway. > > > Uh, what? Legacy support is an unbelievably good reason to do > > something. What's the biggest reason that is stopping all the > > carriers in the world from jumping to IP? The fact that they got > > billions of dollars of installed base that they obviously don't > > want to write off. > > > > The fact is, carriers are looking for something that allows them > > to transition to an IP future without forcing them to write off > > their massive legacy infrastructure. Any technology that extends > > the life of their ATM gear while giving them a smooth path to the > > future is what they're really after. > > And all-optical gear doesn't do this? Regular IP routers don't > help extend the life of an ATM network? All this stuff interconnects > fairly well. You don't require MPLS to extend ATM or any legacy > technology into the future. Uh, no, none of these technologies cleanly provides a smooth technology glide path to each other. Today, a typical ISP has to deal with essentially 3 different infrastructures - transport (optical/TDM), legacy ATM, and IP - and usually with 3 different network teams, 3 different management tools, etc. etc. MPLS allows for at least a merging of ATM and IP, and via GMPLS through a merging of all 3. Consider this. The same ISP can, through a fully-baked version of MPLS (and GMPLS) finally be able to fully integrate and manage its entire network as one. If a customer wants to order wavelength services, if they want to order an ATM PVC, if they want to order simple Internet transport, if they want to order an IP VPN - it can all be provisioned through one management interface and one team of people. No need to mess around with different tools, different people, etc. The entire network has essentially been 'virtualized' by MPLS. > > I already argued some points you may have missed... sure you can > sort of "Interwork" MPLS and ATM. But do we even need the benefits > of ATM? 1) Traffic Engineering - Solved, 2) CoS - Don't Need/Want, > 3) Network Management - Unanswered? Am I missing anything else? You're not missing anything, except that you're not looking at the problem in the same way that I am. Sure, if there
Re: Enterprise technologies [7:58493]
""dre"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > ""nrf"" wrote in message.. > > ISIS has more tuning parameters and more extensibility than OSPF. > > It also has significantly more scalability than OSPF. I dislike > > EIGRP precisely because it's inner-workings are closed. > > If Cisco opened up EIGRP and you understood it completely, would > you be more likely to use it? Oh yes, damn right. >Personally, I think EIGRP's concepts > are excellent and even though it has a bit of feature-creepism, > the advanced algorithms and workings make it very interesting and > useful. The problem is, quite frankly, I don't know exactly how they do it, and that gives me the willies. True, DUAL is published. But I'm talking about all the nitty-gritty details of how neighboring is done exactly and how transmissions are passed reliably. > > To be honest, I really prefer overabundant IBGP networks. Carrying > routes in IGP's seems rather archaic and silly. BGP is very stable > to hundreds of thousands of routes, and IGP's won't ever scale that > high (at least I hope not). > > Code-wise, you can easily compare them: BGP is the most powerful > routing protocol and is only ~40k lines of code, ISIS is smallest > with ~25k lines, EIGRP next with ~35k lines of code, and OSPF is > over 100k lines. Since BGP is almost always needed, especially in > this day-and-age, let IGP carry only next-hop routes for BGP > (infrastructure) and let that protocol be the simplest needed to > do the job. ISIS fits that bill very well, IMO. OSPF is the > Microsoft of routing protocols (oh yeah... it was *built* and is > *pushed* by Microsoft, strange how that works, huh?). EIGRP is > very elegant, and an excellent compromise between ISIS and OSPF - > and until recently (12.1 IOS), I would not have said so considering > the early problems with EIGRP SIA's. I'm not doubting that EIGRP is elegant. But it's closed nature still strikes me as cold. When something goes wrong, what am I supposed to do - always call Cisco? I hate that. > > > I am convinced that MPLS will indeed become the next big thing > > in SP's, but not the flavor of MPLS the way it is constructed > > now. In particular, I see RFC2547 and MPLS-TE as being only > > minor considerations in the future for MPLS implementation > > (granted, they are the major reasons now). Instead, I think that > > MPLS will ultimately morph into a generalized technology by which > > providers will be able to offer a complete range of services and > > features using a unified (dare I say 'converged'?) network. In > > particular, the day that MPLS can offer a complete range of > > ATM/FR/voice services without forcing a wholesale migration to > > IP from legacy gear is the day that widespread MPLS migration > > will occur. Anticipation of this has already occurred - providers > > are now unwilling to invest in legacy ATM gear because they are > > hoping that MPLS will be fully baked in the next few years. MPLS > > will also, through its GMPLS offshoot, be able to offer important > > network management advantages. > > MPLS is probably over 1 million lines of code today, and it's not > even fully mature. I don't see the benefit due to the complexity. > It's not simple; it's not robust. What problems did ATM solve > anyways? Traffic Engineering? Today's solution: Packet Design, > Caimis/IXIA, etc. Quality, constraint-based routing, and classes > of service? Nobody wants classes of service, they all want "the > best" service. Constraints are good, but they are useless to anyone > who doesn't have 2 Ph.D's and 15-20 years of operator experience. > There are only so many people in the world with such qualifications, > not every network can afford to hire them. What ATM did was simple. It gave customers a circuit that was almost good as leased while still providing for multiplexing, and the cost-savings associated with that, to the provider. In short, providers could now provide leased lines without actually having to provide leased lines. Proof of the power of that is simple - look at the tremendous profit that ATM generates, both natively and as a basis for the other 'semi' leased line, FR (which is usually carried by ATM). That kind of profit is something that Internet Service Providers (those who only offer layer-3 services) can only dream of. If ISP's could have figured out a way to generate the kind of profit that ATM generates, they wouldn't all be going bankrupt, and us network engineers would still have jobs. > > I see your points, but I
Re: Enterprise technologies [7:58493]
""dre"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > ""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote > > I may be starting a new project doing some writing about > > technologies used in enterprise networks. (read not service > > provider) > > > > Do I need to cover IS-IS? Or is it mainly ISPs that use this? > > I've never seen IS-IS in Enterprise networks, only ISP > backbones and CODCN's (Central Office Data > Communications Networks) that implement OSI stacks on > network elements. The primary reason I've heard (I'm an > IS-IS fan working in the Enterprise), that also happens to > be a sort of compelling argument - is that OSPF and > EIGRP work better through firewalls. I believe that IS-IS > is significantly less complex than OSPF or EIGRP, and > therefore, easier to train/learn, implement, manage, etc. I've seen ISIS used by enterprises on occasion. ISIS has more tuning parameters and more extensibility than OSPF. It also has significantly more scalability than OSPF. I dislike EIGRP precisely because it's inner-workings are closed. > > > How about MPLS? I should discuss it briefly, but aren't > > the main users of MPLS ISPs, not enterprise networks? > > I've only seen MPLS in ISP networks, but could be used > in Enterprise, especially simple VRF concepts (from > MPLS VPN's). I could see many reasons that Enterprises > could use even static route VRF's for various useful purposes > on occasion, but even that is a rarity. Of course, I'm also of > the opinion that MPLS doesn't really belong in SP networks > either - so YMMV. MPLS-TE is still being argued among > the SP network guru's. MPLS FRR (Fast Re-Route) is an > important network protection and resliency technology and > should be researched, tested, and implemented when the > need arises for it (including for Enterprises). True, MPLS is rarely used in the enterprise, although again, I have seen it on occasion. I am convinced that MPLS will indeed become the next big thing in SP's, but not the flavor of MPLS the way it is constructed now. In particular, I see RFC2547 and MPLS-TE as being only minor considerations in the future for MPLS implementation (granted, they are the major reasons now). Instead, I think that MPLS will ultimately morph into a generalized technology by which providers will be able to offer a complete range of services and features using a unified (dare I say 'converged'?) network. In particular, the day that MPLS can offer a complete range of ATM/FR/voice services without forcing a wholesale migration to IP from legacy gear is the day that widespread MPLS migration will occur. Anticipation of this has already occurred - providers are now unwilling to invest in legacy ATM gear because they are hoping that MPLS will be fully baked in the next few years.MPLS will also, through its GMPLS offshoot, be able to offer important network management advantages. Therefore, sorry to say it, but I see things like RFC2547 and MPLS-TE as only sideshows to the 'real' MPLS initiatives - ATM interworking, circuit-emulation style technologies like the Fischer draft, GMPLS, and the like. RFC2547, in particular, I see as a quite dangerous sideshow because of its implication to BGP scalability and stability. > > > Anyone using GARP? That's on my list to research too. > > GARP, as in Multicast? Many Enterprises are using > Multicast, but their use can vary depending on the > company (could be for reliable multicast like TIBCO, or > could be for live broadcasting sending/receiving, or > research, or many other technical/business reasons). > Understanding the basics is good, but it's hard to cover > all the advanced topics in IP Multicast because it's such > a point application as it is already. GARP is not widespread at the moment. > > > Alas, I have a lot to learn. Thank-you VERY much > > for answering these quick questions. > > You will probably want to look at this from a specific industry > perspective, i.e.: > > High-Tech Manufacturing / Hardware/Software Engineering > Pharmaceuticals > Automotive, Consumer Goods > Government / Political / Federal vs. State/County/City > Defense / Military / Aerospace > Education > Banking / Securities / Financials / Real-Estate > Insurance Companies > Entertainment > Retail > Health Care > Hospitality / Transportation > Energy > > Certain companies have totally different needs technology-wise... > in particular, some business build networks without latency in mind > because they are a state-wide organization, or even a city-wide > organization. Some companies have networks that span the globe, > and some have the same type of need in a mission-critical way. > There are many technologies that apply to certain companies and > not others. > > For any large Enterprise that relies on IT to be mission-critical, > figure that the cost of IT downtime is significant (Meta Group > 2001 report shows $1.5M per hour of downtime). IT relies on > the Internet for growth and technology. Dat
Re: Ccie is a rip off! [7:58458]
""wexo la"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I have no doubt this is not the cetification! > I am just saying it is not testing you on your experties or knowledge! You are correct to say that the CCIE written exam, at least in the past, had some serious problems. I, however, have no experience with the revised CCIE written, so I don't know if Cisco fixed those problems or not. Yet I do believe that the CCIE written still suffers from the inherent flaws that, first of all, because it is a written test, it will ultimately be brain-dumpable, and second, the idea that you can just keep taking the test over and over again until you finally pass defeats the purpose. > > > -Original Message- > From: George Bethel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:03 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Ccie is a rip off! [7:58458] > > > The CCIE written is not a certification, it is a > qualification exam. No matter how dificult you think > it is, if you can't pass the written you're not ready > for the lab. > > > > --- wexo__la wrote: > > Someone should say this already : > > There is no experties-checking in any ccie written > > exam! > > The ccie is a rip-off! > > 50% memory questions (like "what vip version is eprom-value:01e00" and > > other shit.." > > I got the "official exam certification guide" I am a > > ccip/ccdp/ccnp and I > > never got so miss-leaded! this book from july 2002 > > (very new) and it says > > (page 4) the exam is 100 question + does not include > > the fddi and many more > > ... it is missleading in many areas > > + > > the question and cd-test is 80% less > > hard then the actual test and it tells > > you that they are harder! > > i payed the price for getting the book for an idea > > of the test and i got the > > wrong idea! > > i think that cisco is doing something very wrong > > with this > > The material are quite broad and you can ask many > > hard questions on the > > technologies But there are so many of them about > > "how many slots in > > this..?","what version support that..?","what ip > > precedence number is > > flush.." that gets you thinking cisco is not Concern > > about checking your > > experties but something complitly different - that > > gets people like us > > talking about the exams like it is something to brag > > about! > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > __ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. > http://mailplus.yahoo.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=58536&t=58458 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question on CCIE lab equipment? [7:58414]
""bill cisco-guy"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Would be nice to know but I doubt you will get a answer since you > then know what they can and can't test on. > Only one for sure is token ring. > They said no token ring after nov 4 so why would they have a interface > > What is even more of a issue is that they took out the 2500's > Now they can test all the stuff that requires CEF like MPLS and > some of the advanced CBWFQ. Well, 2500's also have CEF (in the later IOS's). But it's true that moving away from the 2500's allow for more complex problems. Which is exactly the way it should be. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=58464&t=58414 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is there any switch capable of assigning IP addres [7:58233]
""Oliver Hensel"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Hi. > > I'd simply use secured switchports fixed to one MAC address > and a DHCP server which gives out IP addresses based on MAC > address. You could also use static ARP entries (this would > need to be done to all the machines on the network though). > > But I can not really see a scalable Solution. 100 stations? > Error prone and a maintenance nightmare. > > Perhaps someone has a more elegant solution? I'm almost certain that 802.1x could be useful here. > > Regards, > Oliver > > Aaron Ajello sagte: > > This might sound silly, but could you use a cat 5000 with an RSM or a > > 6000 with an MSM?. Assign each port on the switch to a seperate vlan, > > then create a bunch of one ip address dhcp scopes on the RP and assign > > one scope per vlan. This would have the result of assigning one ip > > address per switch port. You'd probably want to knock the lease time > > way down. > > > > Then everytime a computer boots up, it'll be assigned to whichever vlan > > corresponds to the port it's attached to and the host will automatically > > get the same ip address every time. You could also use a switch without > > an RP and use a router on a stick for the same thing. > > > > Someone out there probably has a better idea. > > Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- > Oliver Hensel > telematis Netzwerke GmbH > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Siemensstrasse 23, D-76275 Ettlingen >Tel: +49 (0) 7243-3448-0, Fax: -498 > visit us: http://telematis.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=58233&t=58233 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: UPDATE: Is it worth it to pursue CCIE R&S and CCIE [7:58015]
""adrian jones"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > All, > > I am happy to report that my luck has changed for the better. > > Yesterday (Saturday), I had an interview with a manager of a tech consulting > > company which I find kinda strange; however, I was told that the company > > has contracts with other companies that they work mostly on weekends > > to upgrade the system infrastructure. So I went. > > At the interview the manager told me that they are a consulting company > > which requires the employees to have a broad knowledge with both > > networking skills, database and programming background. Instead of throwing > > technical questions at me, the manager asks me to show him the skill > > so that I can convince him that I am the right person for the job. He also > > told me that he interviewed five other CCIEs ealier during the week and > > he wasn't impressed will all of them because they don't have the > > database and programming skills. > > Well, I told the manager that besides what I am doing at my current job > > (which I told him that I will be layoff from the job due to the downsizing > > of the company) as a network engineer, I also know Oracle. Furthermore, > > I also have a lab at home which includes a few "franken" pix firewalls that > > I build to prepare for my CCIE Security lab that function just like a Pix525 > > that I built with "cheap" hardware. I also told him that I have experiences > > with setting and configuring TACACS and RADIUS using Cisco Freeware > > TACACS and FreeRadius and that my experience with Pix firewall is > > rock solid. The TACACS and RADIUS logging is imported to an Oracle9i > > database for auditing purposes. Last but not least, I also told him that > > I have experience with Wireless LAN using Extensible Authentication > > Protocol with Transport Layer Security (EAP-TLS) using FreeRadius and > > Public Key Infracstructure and Smart Certificate. To make the wirless > > network to be extremely secure, I implement IPSec over EAP-TLS. > > I gave him a demonstration by logging back to my home network and > > show him my skill. The manager was very impressed with my skills > > especially with the wireless, TACACS and RADIUS that he offers me a > > job on the spot. He is even more impressed that I learn these skills > > on Unix/Linux platforms which the cost of the software is essentially > > free and that since I have the programming skill, I know how to customize > > the source code. Needless to say, I get the job with a pay of $100k/year. > > My responsibility at the new company is to train other employees what > > I know about Pix Firewalls, Wireless security (EAP-TLS, LEAP, PEAP), > > building TACACS and free RADIUS on Solaris, BSD and linux platform, > > perl programming and Oracle9i and MySQL database. Two of the people > > whom I will train are CCIEs. Now, I can really concentrate on my R&S > > lab in Dec and Security in Jan. > > I would like to thank eveyone in this group for encouraging me with your > > wisdom in the past few days. Hopefully, I will pass the lab in my first > > try. First, let me say congratulations on your new job. Second, you should note that what got you the job was not your routing/switching skills, but all the other things that you brought to the table. Heck, you managed to beat out a host of other CCIE's precisely because you had a set of unique skills that they didn't have. This speaks to the point I made earlier about saturation of skills. Let's face it, these days, if all you know is routing and switching, even at an advanced level, you really don't know much - not in this economy. If you want to be and remain employable, you will have to bring unusual skills to the table. Why bother killing yourself to learn a skill that is saturated? Which ties into my third point - ROI. Like I said before when you asked whether you should pursue your studies, my response was that everybody should invest their time into whatever they think will produce them the best yield on their return. In your case, you defeated a bunch of CCIE's precisely because you had a set of special skills that they didn't have. Sure, they probably had a set of skills you didn't have, but your set was deemed to be better. Therefore, one seemingly very lucrative avenue of attack is to continue building on your special skills. After all, if the CCIE's lost out, then that speaks to a possibility that their skillset really isn't as valuable as yours, so should you really spend time in getting their skills rather than building on what made you special? Again, that's not to say that you should or should not spend time/resources on the lab. Only you can make that determination. What I'm saying is that you should assess what worked and what didn't work for you and adjust accordingly. If it's the CCIE skillset that will provide you with success, then go for it. But if it's other skills that make you succeed, th
Re: CCIE requirement: full time networking? [7:57936]
I would argue that while the CCIE lab itself does not require a job that consists of 100% networking (heck, some guys have passed the lab without ever touching a production network before in their life), the main reason for most people to try the lab - which is to get a high-level networking job - essentially requires a job that is 100% networking. Gone are the days when you could get your 4-digit (now 5-digit) number and somebody would immediately hand you a job. Nowadays, employers scrutinize your experience to the nth degree. The fact of the matter is, if you don't have significant experience to accompany your number, you're gonna find it damn hard to get a job. Just look at all the unemployed CCIE's, which tend to be disproportionately skewed towards those with low experience (yes, some CCIE's with lots of experience are having trouble too, but nothing even close to those with little/no experience). Now this is not to say that you shouldn't study for your lab. What I'm saying is that you need to ask yourself what you hope to accomplish by going down this road and how realistic your expectations are. If you decide that the CCIE still fills your career goals, then great. But if not, then maybe you should spend your time doing something else. There are only 24 hours in a day and you need to decide what is the best use of those hours. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=57953&t=57936 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is it worth it to pursue CCIE R&S and CCIE Security [7:57920]
> > > > That makes me question myself whether if it is worth it to pursue > > the CCIE R&S and CCIE Security given the market condition. These > > guys have years of experiences and "certified" and are without jobs. > > I would have virtually no chance with people like them even if I am > > CCIE certified. They are certified too. > > > > I know that it is too late to cancel the lab; however, this is just my > > personal feeling. I am wondering if anyone out there is feeling the > > same way. I would like to hear your take on this. I am going to differ from the other respondents to your question and answer your question this way. The only person who can truly say whether something is worth doing or not is you. Nobody else can make that decision for you. However, what I can do is offer you a framework upon you can base your decision whether it is worth it or not. *What does it mean by be 'worth it'? The notion of something being 'worth it' is essentially a calculation of whether the money and resources you would need to spend to do that thing could or could not be better spent doing something else. Instead of spending your time studying for the R/S lab, for example, would it be better for you to spend that time studying some other technology? Maybe. It depends on a host of factors - what you like to do, what technologies you have access to, and that kind of thing. However, this exposes some of the responses I've seen here as being overly simplistic. Many people are going to respond by telling you to continue your pursuit of the labs because doing so will do nothing but help you. Well, of course it will help. Everything helps. But that's not the point. Getting a MBA, JD, PhD, MD, MFA, and every other degree out there will help you too. But does that mean you should go and pursue all of them? Or, to give you an extreme example, should a lawyer spend time studying for a medical degree? Probably not. Let's face it - nobody just grabs designations and certifications just for fun, they do it because they are trying to advance their career. It's a return-on-investment kind of thing. Businesses don't invest resources just for the hell of it, they do it because they want to get a return on their investment, and they want to invest their resources into whatever will get them the greatest return. The same is true of you - you want to put your time and money into doing something that will net you the best return. * Saturation Let's face it - there are a lot of people who know networking out there, and due to the death spiral of the telcos, not much demand for for that kind of knowledge. Knowledge of complex networking is simply not as important as it was just a few years ago. By learning Cisco routing/switching and/or Cisco security, let's be honest here, you're not really distinguishing yourself from the crowd, because a lot of other people know it too. On the other hand, there are many aspects of networking that not that many people know. IP telephony, for example, is still very much a black-art. Storage switch technology like stuff from Brocade, McData, and (soon) Cisco is almost certainly going to be another. "True" security knowledge (of a level many many times deeper than the CCIE-Security could ever be) is yet another. The point is that you simply can't count on expertise of plain-vanilla networking to land you a job anymore. *The power of experience I've always been of the opinion that lab-study should always be something you do on the side to accompany a real networking job. Lab-study should never be used in place of a real job, for a number of reasons, not least of which is that you meet many more people through a real job than through studying in a lab. Let's face it, when it comes to finding work, it's really not what you know, it's who you know. Looking at this from the lens of being 'worth it', I would argue that instead of a person constantly studying in a lab for his exam, perhaps that person could better spend that time working at a job, even as a volunteer. Otherwise, consider the case of the lab-guy passing the lab and still not being able to find work whereas the guy who instead took whatever odd jobs he could find gets hooked up for employment through somebody he met. *Conclusion Again, none of this is to say that you shouldn't spend your time studying for the exams. Maybe you should, maybe you shouldn't. That is a choice that only you are qualified to make. But what you should do is take a look at all the alternatives available to you and make a decision accordingly. Lab preparation takes time and money (especially time), and time and money are the 2 most valuable resources in life. You should use your resources wisely. > > > > Thanks. > > Adrian > > > > > > > > - > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=57920&t=57920
Re: IGRP as proprietary? [7:57603]
> Router_10(config)#router ? > bgp Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) > egp Exterior Gateway Protocol (EGP) > eigrp Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP) > igrp Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (IGRP) > isis ISO IS-IS > > > > > > > iso-igrp IGRP for OSI networksNOTE THIS ONE > > mobileMobile routes > odr On Demand stub Routes > ospf Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) > rip Routing Information Protocol (RIP) > staticStatic routes > > I don't believe I have ever seen any documentation on this version on CCO Au contraire: (watch the wrap) http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122cgcr/fapo lo_c/3cfclns.htm#xtocid13 Not only is ISO-IGRP actually fairly well documented, I have actually used it several times in some old-school GOSIP networks. It's a nice little protocol, if a bit limited. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=57825&t=57603 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GRE on PIX and Concentrators [7:57729]
""Curious"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > PIX supports GRE, i have setup GRE tunnel between my 2 sites. Here is link > which might helps you. > > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk648/tk367/technologies_configuration_examp > le09186a00800a43f6.shtml I don't know that that really counts as the Pix 'supporting' GRE. I would call it a case of 'allowing' GRE tunnels to go through it. Support for GRE usually connotes the ability to actually source/sink GRE tunnels, which the Pix still cannot do. > > > thanks, > > -- > Curious > > MCSE, CCNP > ""The Long and Winding Road"" wrote in > message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > the last time I checked, the answer was "no" to either one. it has been > > several months, but at that time the Cisco position was "why would you > want > > to" and there were several preferred means of terminating secure tunnels > on > > either device. > > > > -- > > TANSTAAFL > > "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch" > > > > > > > > > > ""Azhar Teza"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > Hi Folks, Does anyone know if PIX or VPN Concentrators support GRE to > > enable > > > multiprotocol routing such as EIGRP.I have 10 branches and am thinking > to > > > replace my FR clould with site-to-sit VPN. IPSEC doesn'tsupport > > > multiprotocol routing such as EIGRP and requires GRE to work in > parallel. > > As > > > far as I know GRE is only supported in routers and Cisco yet to provide > > this > > > feature in PIX and Concentrators.How in the world I could do this > since > > my > > > hearquarter has PIX and that is where I wanted my VPN tunnels.Is there > any > > > alternatives? Does PIX 510 support VPN? Regards, Teza > > > > > > ___ > > > Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com > > > The most personalized portal on the Web! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=57751&t=57729 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Block MSN Messenger [7:57595]
Not to mention that msn mesgr can conceal itself using port80 packets. ""Josh Green"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > It is possible, however Messenger uses so many different ports on so many > different servers that it's not worth your time. > > -Original Message- > From: Steven A. Ridder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 8:36 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Block MSN Messenger [7:57595] > > no. don't waste your time. > > > ""Ahed Naimi"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Dear All; > > > > Is there any way to block MSN Messenger by using the access-list > statements > > on an IOS Cisco router. > > > > Thanks All. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=57622&t=57595 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PIX and USB ports [7:56862]
""Ryan Finnesey"" wrote in message news:200211050237.CAA19680@;groupstudy.com... > What would be a good way to manage the IX remotely ? Get yourself a terminal server and set up out-of-band management to that terminal server. > > > Ryan, > > > Greg Owens wrote: > > >It is for future use. > > > >-Original Message- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:nobody@;groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of > >Firesox > >Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 8:04 PM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: PIX and USB ports [7:56862] > > > >I would like to setup and outband connection to the pix 506E/515E thru > >the > >USB ports. > >I have USB modem hooked up to my pixs, but I cannot find the article to > >setup the USB ports. > >When dialin to the modem, it wouldn't respond... > > > >Thanks Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=56869&t=56862 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPLS on low-end hardware [7:56487]
""Michael Vasilenko"" wrote in message news:200210292058.UAA00599@;groupstudy.com... > Hello! > > One question - is it possible to run MPLS (edge or LSR) on 26xx? > Any experience? Right IOS? Sure, it's just flaky. And not surprisingly MPLS is not officially supported by Cisco on 26xx's, so if you are running a production MPLS network on such gear and you experience problems, you're f*cked. > > -- > Michael Vasilenko Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=56494&t=56487 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: can I use a /31 subnet to the link between 2 routers eth [7:55638]
Actually, now that I think about it, AT&T also used to use a few RFC1918 addresses on their public Internet space as well, I think in Asia somewhere (Japan?). But they might not do that anymore. ""bergenpeak"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Lets make this discussion real. What major ISPs actually use 1918 > addresses > on their physical interfaces? > > I know ATT (7018) does not. > > > > nrf wrote: > > > > ""Symon Thurlow"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > Well, I would view an ISP who uses 1918 addresses in their public network > > a > > > little warily. Traceroute etc are pretty fundamental problem solving > tools > > > IMHO > > > > Well then I suppose that means you would be suspicious of virtually all > > major providers out there. Rare indeed is it to find a provider that never > > uses this trick anywhere in their public network. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=55638&t=55638 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: can I use a /31 subnet to the link between 2 routers eth [7:55630]
Why, the biggest one of all - Worldcom. ""bergenpeak"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Lets make this discussion real. What major ISPs actually use 1918 > addresses > on their physical interfaces? > > I know ATT (7018) does not. > > > > nrf wrote: > > > > ""Symon Thurlow"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > Well, I would view an ISP who uses 1918 addresses in their public network > > a > > > little warily. Traceroute etc are pretty fundamental problem solving > tools > > > IMHO > > > > Well then I suppose that means you would be suspicious of virtually all > > major providers out there. Rare indeed is it to find a provider that never > > uses this trick anywhere in their public network. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=55630&t=55630 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
