Regarding what Carroll Kong wrote -
I guess we have to wonder what Cisco's ultimate goals are. If they
decreased the lab time and altered the exam to be more 'streamlined' and
'easier', why would they immediately step backwards?
In my experience taking the lab, I must say the 1-day lab is not
But that's really neither here nor there. At the end of the day, more
bootcamps = easier test. Why there are more bootcamps around today is
unimportant for purposes of this discussion. It doesn't matter why - so
why
ask why. All that matters is are there more bootcamps.
Now again, I
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
MADMAN
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 11:59 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
n The same was true of my 2-day
test, again, I had done everything on both days by mid
if they
want to value there flagship cert. Everyone would agree w/me that the value
of the cert has a lot more value than the value put in to obtained the cert.
- Original Message -
From: Carroll Kong
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Hmmm that might
Were the two T1's terminating at two differant ISP's? If so BGP
would be appropriate. If you have 2 T1's terminating at a single
ISP in
the same POP then no.
What would you do if they had been terminating at a single ISP in the
same POP? Or did you mean same router?
Most likely
Duy Nguyen wrote:
If it comes down to money. Why not increase the rate? I've
remember when
the price for exam was only a G. When they decided to raise
the price,
peeps start to mumbleed and grumbleed how the test was getting
so expensive,
but that didn't stop peeps from taking the
Thanks, I appreciate your comments.
Zsombor
At 01:36 PM 6/23/2003 -0500, MADMAN wrote:
Were the two T1's terminating at two differant ISP's? If so BGP
would be appropriate. If you have 2 T1's terminating at a single ISP in
the same POP then no.
What would you do if they had been
Duy Nguyen wrote:
Would it be a good idea to make the CCIE Lab adaptive? 1st,
everyone will
try a screener test of overall technologies. Once you have
finished, they
will give you a lab book that they believe are more challenging
to you. How
many lab books do they have, maybe a
Hmmm that might work. However, while you say someone good with
concepts will do well, that is what I always thought earlier, until a
good amount of members on this list and in the real world insisted
that good knowledge of theory won't get you anywhere on the CCIE
exam, only hardened
I was multi-homed. Sprint and Qwest.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Howard C. Berkowitz
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 4:41 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: When to run BGP (was RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
At 4:24 PM + 6/20/03, Mark E
you, the clock aready started. You just wasted 2 minutes staring at me.
- Original Message -
From: n rf
To:
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 10:09 PM
Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Carroll Kong wrote:
be more prone to some form of bootcamp brain dumpage
Carroll Kong wrote:
Hey, I don't want to take either of them again if I don't have to. But if
I
was forced to make a choice, I'd prefer to take the singlet over the
doublet. It's like being punched in the face once vs. being punched twice.
Well I cannot say anything specific against it
Yes the two T-1's were from Sprint and Qwest.
-Original Message-
From: MADMAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 12:37 PM
To: Mark E. Hayes
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Mark E. Hayes wrote:
NOT being a wise-a$$ here... When
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 12:37 PM
To: Mark E. Hayes
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Mark E. Hayes wrote:
NOT being a wise-a$$ here... When is it appropriate to run BGP? I set
it
up at the last job I had because I felt
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
MADMAN
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 11:59 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
n The same was true of my 2-day
test, again, I had done everything on both days by mid-afternoon and I
just
sat around
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
n The same was true of my 2-day
test, again, I had done everything on both days by mid-afternoon and I
just
sat around with nothing to do but check my work over and over again.
Hmm, when I took the lab you were done configuring
At 4:24 PM + 6/20/03, Mark E. Hayes wrote:
NOT being a wise-a$$ here... When is it appropriate to run BGP? I set it
up at the last job I had because I felt it was the best way to get
redundancy for web services. I had two T-1's, ASN, and had to guarantee
100% uptime for one of our clients.
MADMAN wrote:
n The same was true of my 2-day
test, again, I had done everything on both days by
mid-afternoon and I just
sat around with nothing to do but check my work over and over
again.
Hmm, when I took the lab you were done configuring at noon
on the
second day at which
Carroll Kong wrote:
be more prone to some form of bootcamp brain dumpage. But
this
is
not really conclusive. It might just be that, the CCIE is
becoming
more popular and people have recently tapped into this
market. The
drop in Cisco gear pricing on the used market
-Original Message-
From: n rf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 11:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Vikram JeetSingh wrote:
Hi All,
I was stopping myself for writing on this thread for quite some
time. Quite
a number of people have
nrf said:
Let's face it - no company is ever going to hire Charles Manson.
Didn't Routergod.com ;-)
n rf wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vikram JeetSingh wrote:
Hi All,
I was stopping myself for writing on this thread for quite some
time. Quite
a number of people
Vikram JeetSingh wrote:
OK...
My dear friend, NRF, over here is fired up and ready to go on
anyone, who
responds on this thread. :)
Nothing personal, but you did mentioned, or rather gave a lot
of stress on
maintaining crime-less life (I am not able to understand the
reason for
Carroll Kong wrote:
Those three have pretty much echoed my themes. Hansang, in
fact, has
admitted that he accelerated his ccie studies so that he
would take (and
pass) the 2-day exam because he didn't want to run the risk
of being known
as an asterisk-ccie (meaning the one-day ccie).
-Original Message-
From: Peter van Oene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 3:21 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
[JN] Yeah, but does the college happy HR dude (your idol) who
says
bachelors required on dinky IT jobs (e.g. desktop support
Vikram JeetSingh wrote:
Hi All,
I was stopping myself for writing on this thread for quite some
time. Quite
a number of people have reverted back on this, but this one,
(from Peter) is
just kind of PERFECT. Priscilla also wrote on one of other
threads, that for
having a worthwhile
Those three have pretty much echoed my themes. Hansang, in fact, has
admitted that he accelerated his ccie studies so that he would take (and
pass) the 2-day exam because he didn't want to run the risk of being known
as an asterisk-ccie (meaning the one-day ccie).
I know someone who took
Jack Nalbandian wrote:
[NRF] Uh, no the free market responds by giving preference to
certain
well-known
elite colleges. Everybody knows that not every bachelor's
degree is born
the same. Some are far more valuable than others. Goldman
Sachs will send
recruiters to Harvard, but not
[JN] Yeah, but does the college happy HR dude (your idol) who
says
bachelors required on dinky IT jobs (e.g. desktop support
tech) pay
attention to that? As far as he's concerned all BSs are BSs,
and they are
all superior to non-graduates. Remember that we are talking
about IT
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n
rf
Sent: June 10, 2003 1:22 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Mark E. Hayes wrote:
I don't know why I am doing this but I am... As far as trading
in
numbers goes-
It doesn't make a difference to me if I am #1100 or #11000. I
am
Mark E. Hayes wrote:
hehehe!!! Well done. I enjoyed that retort. I have to admit
that I did
not know there were lab bootcamps. All of the bootcamps I have
seen are
for the written test. How much does a CCIE lab bootcamp run? I
earned my
MCSE and CCNA fair and square, even though, I did
Jack Nalbandian wrote:
[NRF] In this thread, I have attacked what has happened to the
CCIE lately.
Not
the CCIE in general, just what has happened to it lately. This
is a
[JN] Your overall approach has a pattern to it, and your
response ironically
reenforces the notion. The number
[NRF] Uh, no the free market responds by giving preference to certain
well-known
elite colleges. Everybody knows that not every bachelor's degree is born
the same. Some are far more valuable than others. Goldman Sachs will send
recruiters to Harvard, but not Podunk Community College. And this
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Mark E. Hayes wrote:
hehehe!!! Well done. I enjoyed that retort. I have to admit
that I did
not know there were lab bootcamps. All of the bootcamps I have
seen are
for the written test. How much does a CCIE lab bootcamp run? I
earned
Mark E. Hayes wrote:
I don't know why I am doing this but I am... As far as trading
in
numbers goes-
It doesn't make a difference to me if I am #1100 or #11000. I
am only a
CCNA now and
working on my NP. I feel the reason for the headhunters and HR
types to
value a lower number
is
[NRF] In this thread, I have attacked what has happened to the CCIE lately.
Not
the CCIE in general, just what has happened to it lately. This is a
[JN] Your overall approach has a pattern to it, and your response ironically
reenforces the notion. The number of CCIE thread merely complements
:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Here's a question for those recruiters, headhunters and HR People- Out of
CCIE 1025-, how many of them do you think are still actively with the
program, still working in the industry, still are at the top of their game
(i.e
Mark W. Odette II wrote:
Here's a question for those recruiters, headhunters and HR
People- Out of CCIE 1025-, how many of them do you think
are still actively with the program, still working in the
industry, still are at the top of their game (i.e., could go
back in and take the OLD
The Road Goes Ever On wrote:
some comments are meant in good fun, others are of more serious
source. pray
do not take offense, as none is intended.
n rf wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sigh. I knew this was going to happen.
so why'd you bring it up in the first place? :-
says jump, they ask how high and
how many times?
Enough said...
- Original Message -
From: The Road Goes Ever On
To:
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
some comments are meant in good fun, others are of more
serious
subjective topics as you see fit.
for what its worth, in my opinion, nrf has well earned the right to debate
whatever he wants on this list.
pete
thanks.
- Original Message -
From: n rf
Date: Sunday, June 8, 2003 4:14 pm
Subject: Re: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
garrett allen wrote
:)
Peter van
Oene
cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: RE: number of
CCIE [7:70151
:)
Peter van
Oene
cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: RE: number of
CCIE [7:70151]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.com
n rf wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Road Goes Ever On wrote:
snip for brevety
One person's opinion. Have you any statistics to back that up?
have passing
rates gone up or down? over what time period? with what
technologies being
tested?
Again, I have the simple
The Road Goes Ever On 6/9/03 3:14:32
PM
n rf wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Road Goes Ever On wrote:
snip for brevety
One person's opinion. Have you any statistics to back that up?
have passing
rates gone up or down? over what time period? with what
technologies being
by:Subject: Re: RE: number
of CCIE [7:70151]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
m
, 2003 7:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Here's a question for those recruiters, headhunters and HR People- Out
of
CCIE 1025-, how many of them do you think are still actively with
the
program, still working in the industry, still are at the top of their
game
an insecurity
issue to deal with, so they can just get over it. We have networks to
maintain.
-Original Message-
From: n rf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 12:34 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Mark W. Odette II wrote:
Here's
John,
Perhaps your bias is based on the intrinsic value of longevity, of
experience, associated with the lower number. You tell me.
Another poster, Craig Columbus [EMAIL PROTECTED],
pointed out market forces, to which I find no objection, however speculative
it is. There is the trend of
running NetWare 3.12.
Most look at what I have done in a production environment.
Hope this was lengthy enough!!!
Mitch
- Original Message -
From: The Road Goes Ever On
To:
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
n rf wrote in message
news:[EMAIL
Jack Nalbandian wrote:
John,
Perhaps your bias is based on the intrinsic value of longevity,
of
experience, associated with the lower number. You tell me.
Another poster, Craig Columbus
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
pointed out market forces, to which I find no objection,
however speculative
John Neiberger wrote:
The Road Goes Ever On
6/9/03 3:14:32
PM
n rf wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Road Goes Ever On wrote:
snip for brevety
One person's opinion. Have you any statistics to back that
up?
have passing
rates gone up or down? over what time
, June 07, 2003 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
some comments are meant in good fun, others are of more serious source.
pray
do not take offense, as none is intended.
n rf wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sigh. I knew this was going to happen.
so why'd you bring it up
garrett allen wrote:
yawn.
Bored?
I don't want to be overly confrontational, but if you really thought this
thread was so boring that you're yawning, then why did you bother to make a
rebuttal to me in the first place? The fact that you did obviously means
that you don't think it's THAT
:14 pm
Subject: Re: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
garrett allen wrote:
yawn.
Bored?
I don't want to be overly confrontational, but if you really
thought this
thread was so boring that you're yawning, then why did you bother
to make a
rebuttal to me in the first place? The fact
garrett allen wrote:
the intent of this list is to discuss preparation cisco exams,
not
opportunities in the various job markets. if your comments
don't
relate to the study blueprint in some meaninful way, please
keep them
to yourself.
First of all, keep in mind that I didn't start this
The Road Goes Ever On wrote:
n rf wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
, and that's my point.
threads like this are like discussing the maximum number of
angels
dancing on the head of a pin. i vote we kill the thread before
it
spawn.
later.
- Original Message -
From: n rf
Date: Thursday, June 5, 2003 5:16 pm
Subject: RE: number of CCIE
, 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
Fernando Saldana del C wrote:
Dear n fr,
Which CCIE number are you ?
What does it matter what my CCIE number is? How does that affect the
validity of my statements? Either what Im saying is either true or it
isnt, who I am has nothing to do with anything. Why cant people debate
just on
Sigh. I knew this was going to happen.
Gentlemen, this is why I posted such a long response, because I wanted you
all to be honest with yourselves. I could have just said what I had to say
straight-up, without any explanation, but I felt (and obviously with a lot
of justification) that I
I commend people to remember the tale of the Emperor's New Clothes here.
It utterly confounds me that people are focusing on the CCIE number
as the discriminator for a hiring decision, lower being better.
Lower means that one obtained the certification earlier. Presumably,
since the number
, June 07, 2003 11:36 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
I commend people to remember the tale of the Emperor's New Clothes here.
It utterly confounds me that people are focusing on the CCIE number
as the discriminator for a hiring decision, lower being better.
Lower
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Sigh. I knew this was going to happen.
Gentlemen, this is why I posted such a long response, because I wanted you
all to be honest with yourselves. I could have just said what I had to say
straight-up, without any explanation, but I felt
some comments are meant in good fun, others are of more serious source. pray
do not take offense, as none is intended.
n rf wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sigh. I knew this was going to happen.
so why'd you bring it up in the first place? :-
Gentlemen, this is why I posted such a
- 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
Dude, with all due respect, are you a recruiter for some college somwhere?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n
rf
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 9:06 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Sigh. I knew this was going
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
yawn.
- Original Message -
From: n rf
Date: Saturday, June 7, 2003 12:09 pm
Subject: Re: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
garrett allen wrote:
you make an a priori argument that lower is better. is a lower
number
cpa better than a higher numbered one?
You got me wrong. I
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
I commend people to remember the tale of the Emperor's New
Clothes here.
It utterly confounds me that people are focusing on the CCIE
number
as the discriminator for a hiring decision, lower being
better.
I'm just telling you what I've seen. I think anybody
Perfect!
- Original Message -
From: philip
To:
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Man,
I never see a job post specify that certain CCIE number is prefer.
Why did you even bother to ask this question in the beginning, if you
think
I'm sure the lab becoming 1 day had something to do with it but they
also added the security exam.
I don't think the braindump of the written has anything to do with it,
still gotta pass the lab before you get your #.
On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 04:46:22AM +, Lamy Alexandre wrote:
You find
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
Dear n fr,
Which CCIE number are you ?
Are you trying to devalue more the networking jobs?
Please be realistic you cannot compare a Software
company with a Networking company.
I looks like you are saying that the world will return
to the stone age and communicate by messengers that
will run
and experiences.
threads like this are like discussing the maximum number of angels
dancing on the head of a pin. i vote we kill the thread before it
spawn.
later.
- Original Message -
From: n rf
Date: Thursday, June 5, 2003 5:16 pm
Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Well, there are still
n rf wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
You find that the number of CCIE increases very quickly? Maybe that the
value will be less.
the last year, they was 8000,this year, 11 000
maybe also because the lab become 1 day, and there is many braindump of the
written exam.
Message Posted at:
76 matches
Mail list logo
