From: Thomas Larus (tlarus@xxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Jan 10 2002 - 13:27:20 GMT-3
Not at all. My impression is that as more CCIE-focused study materials
have become available, CCIE candidates have been expected to learn more
material and be able to do the lab tasks faster and faster.
There is such a huge number of us learning this material and practicing
the labs every chance we get, that Cisco will be able to remain very
picky about who they let pass. If we all learn the material that is
readily available, they will not hesitate to require even more offbeat
knowledge. I've never taken the lab, so I could be wrong, but I don't
see a lot of "hurray, I've passed" emails recently, and people are
taking this lab exam in larger numbers than ever with the new supply of
lab dates.
Cisco benefits greatly from the huge number of people investing
ourselves so heavily in learning its products and IOS thoroughly. Those
of us who stick with this and get the CCIE will benefit greatly, too,
but I strongly suspect that the legendary (mythical) salaries and/or
strangely flexible work schedules that some of us used to hear about may
be reserved for the very top CCIEs with very strong knowledge and
experience. I am in this because it is the most interesting stuff I've
ever studied, and I hope someday to teach or write books or training
materials for much less than the usual CCIE salary we used to hear
about.
As crowded as it is getting, it will never be as crowded as law is (I am
a lawyer who loved legal research and writing), and it's even more
interesting.
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Baiao, Nuno
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 10:00 AM
To: 'R. Benjamin Kessler'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: OT: Honorary CIE's
They already started doing the "official" CCIE curriculum that is what
the
new CCIE practical book is. What do you guys think about that book?
Don't
you think that in the long run will put in jeopardy the reputation of
the
CCIE Certification?
Best compliments,
Nuno Baico
> Network Engineer Consultant
> KPMG Consulting
> KPMG Cisco Service Provider
> 6 The Square, Stockley Park, Uxbridge UB11 1JR United Kingdom
mobile: +44 7950 917 478
fax: +44 20 7694 3410
email: nuno.baiao@kpmg.co.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: R. Benjamin Kessler [mailto:ben@kesslerconsulting.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 2:37 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: OT: Honorary CCIE's
I'm not stepping into the middle of this flame-war; Howard is a big boy
and
is certainly capable of defending himself.
That said, I have had some conversations with some people (non-Cisco,
who
shall remain anonymous) that have prepared some (highly-regarded) CCIE
prep
materials. They indicated that there is a constant struggle against
Cisco
to prove that they're not breaking NDA and that Cisco has more than
hinted
about creating an "official" CCIE curriculum to put these people out of
business.
I'm sure that the "official" Cisco party line would be different; but I
found it interesting none the less.
You may now return to your regularly-scheduled flame-war.
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Howard C. Berkowitz
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 9:41 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: OT: Honorary CCIE's
Let me remind the list that the challenges from Brian came were not
in response to anything I was saying about CCIE qualifications or
not, but to a technical response to a technical question about NSSAs.
I would like this thread to return to a technical theme that is
generally useful, but I'm afraid that a few things that Mr. Dennis
has said are over the line.
>Howard,
>Kind of hypocritical of you to say I misquoted you and then you go
misquote
>me don't you think? I didn't say that someone like Vint Cerf couldn't
>network and you know that. I said that there is CCSI's out there that
can't
>network their way out of a paper bag. A CCSI no matter how long they've
been
>a CCSI doesn't make them a CCIE.
I don't know what you know about my background. It's a good deal more
than a CCSI alone. Yes, I agree there are CCSIs that can't network
their way out of a paper bag. I never claimed that my CCSI exposure
alone defined my skill set.
>
>If you're so comfortable with your knowledge, why don't you just go
take
the
>actual CCIE lab? Don't say it's because of the NDA. I develop/teach
CCIE
>prep courses and I'm not afraid of the NDA. I get 100% of my ideas from
>http://www.cisco.com. You should be able to develop material without
having
>to break the NDA. If breaking the NDA is an issue then maybe you
shouldn't
>be developing Cisco certification material to begin with. Sounds to me
like
you're using it as an excuse.
I will simply say that I've had enough direct experience with Cisco
attorneys that I play carefully by IPR rules.
>
>As far as proving something goes, if you want to "play" in this CCIE
>certification world then you do have something to prove and it's called
the
>CCIE lab. If you ever want to step up to the plate just let me know.
I'll
>pay for CCIE lab.
>
>Lastly and please don't take this the wrong way but I do know who those
>people are and you don't belong in the same category.
Check the advisory council of the Wiley Networking Series, which
consists of Vint Cerf, Scott Bradner, and Lyman Chapin. Feel free to
ask any of them about me, especially Scott Bradner, who was the
technical advisor and reviewer for my Wiley book, "WAN Survival
Guide," and with whom I'm also involved in IETF benchmarking
development. Verify any of this with Carol Long at Wiley, or directly
with these people.
I am a current coauthor of the Future Domain Routing requirements in
the IETF, as well as four other current Internet Drafts, and am sole
or coauthor of 3 other RFCs. In particular, look at my standards
track work on BGP conformance, with coauthors including Alvaro Retana
of Cisco, Marianne Lepp of Juniper, and Sue Hares of Nexthop (who is
co-chair, with Yakov, of the IDR Working Group that develops BGP). I
was a peer reviewer for Jeff Doyle (and he for me), and for John
Moy's OSPF book.
>You may be able to
>fool some folks by telling them you belong in the same category but
you're
>not going to fool everyone. Actually I think it's kind of "big" of you
to
>put YOURSELF in the same category as those people.
As I say, ask any of the people. Check my publications and
presentations in the IETF, NANOG, ARIN, and elsewhere. Funny...your
name doesn't seem to show up in any of these contexts.
>Well I guess it's not
>much of a stretch seeing are you're a honorary CCIE and all. ;-) Sorry
I
>couldn't let that one slide.
And I guess it's not much of a stretch given that you are a troll.
>
>Brian Dennis, CCIE #2210 (R&S)(ISP/Dial) CCSI #98640
>5G Networks, Inc.
>brian@5g.net
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
>Howard C. Berkowitz
>Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 4:19 PM
>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: Re: OT: Honorary CCIE's
>
>
>>Howard,
>>How many other "honorary" CCIEs are there besides you? ;-)
>
>
>Brian,
>
>I'm finding that I'm being misquoted, and I don't find it very funny.
>I did not call myself an honorary CCIE. What I actually said was that
>before the CCIE program, and before there were training partners
>(roughly pre-1995), Cisco had a limited number of CCSIs. Most of
>these were Cisco employees. The qualification procedure was NOT for
>ICND, which didn't exist at the time.
>
>I'm not the only individual to go back to this time frame, who has
>NEVER called themselves an honorary CCIE but has not felt any driving
>need to prove a point by having one. I think Priscilla Oppenheimer
>can make some comments in this area as well.
>
>Not on this list, but people I can think of who are not CCIEs,
>include Tony Li, Yakov Rekhter, Dave Katz, JJ Garcia-Luna-Alceves,
>Randy Bush, Andrew Partan, Radia Perlman, Paul Ferguson, Vint Cerf,
>Scott Bradner, Frank Kastenholz, Karl Auerbach, Sue Hares, Sean
>Doran, and many others. Do you know who they are? Do they know who
>you are? Are you saying they don't know how to network?
>
>>I do a lot of
>>work in the security area and teach/develop CCIE prep courses which
cover
>>security topics but that doesn't mean I consider myself an honorary
>Security
>>CCIE. I will just take the lab and let Cisco be the judge if I'm a
Security
>>CCIE or not. This is usually how if works.
>>
>>I don't think that the CCSI should be compared to the CCIE. The CCSI
is
>>based on teaching a very low level Cisco router course like the ICND
>
>The _current_ ICND. Indeed, I contributed content to or was on the
>internal review team for, a fair number of Cisco courses.
>
>>. If you
>>think that the CCSI is comparable to the CCIE, you're sadly mistaken.
If
>>they should grandfather CCSI's to anything it should be CCNA and not
CCIE.
>I
>>know many CCSI's that couldn't network they way out of a paper bag in
the
>>real world and I'm not just talking about the newer ones.
>
>And I know many CCIEs who couldn't design a really large network. So
what?
>
>>
>>Lastly if you're not writing CCIE prep material to the actual lab test
then
>>you shouldn't have any issues with the NDA. Someone who writes CCIE
prep
>>material who isn't an actual CCIE because they are worried about NDA
issues
>>sounds kind of screwed up to me.
>
>Someone who thinks this isn't a problem has not had to deal with
>Cisco's intellectual property attorneys. I don't propose to get into
>the details of this, but I think Paul Borghese, among others, can
>testify there are significant sensitivities.
>
>>
>>Brian Dennis, CCIE #2210 (R&S)(ISP/Dial) CCSI #98640
>>5G Networks, Inc.
>>brian@5g.net
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
>>Howard C. Berkowitz
>>Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 10:55 AM
>>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>>Subject: RE: NSSA
>>
>>
>>>Wow, looks like everyones going for their CCIE now. Howard is even
>throwing
>>>his hat into the ring. ;-)
>>>
>>>Good luck on your lab Howard.
>>>
>>>Brian Dennis, CCIE #2210 (R&S)(ISP/Dial) CCSI #98640
>>>5G Networks, Inc.
>>>bdennis@5g.net
>>
>>Actually, not quite. Paul and I thought that I might be able to
>>contribute here.
>>
>>At the present time, I have no plans to go through the CCIE process.
>>This is principally a business decision. Since I am partially in the
>>business of generating study materials, and Cisco intellectual
>>property attorneys are quite aggressive, I made the decision that by
>>not taking the CCIE, I could not be meaningfully accused of NDA
>>violations.
>>
>>Also, my CCSI (93005) precedes the CCIE program. At the time, the
>>certification often involved two weeks or more of testing and
>>demonstration, and, indeed, there was a Cisco proposal to grandfather
>>pre-1995 CCSIs.
>>
>>While I thoroughly support the CCIE as a means of advancement,
>>especially in the support area, I think I have enough demonstrated
>>experience that it's really not important if I have it or not.
>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf
Of
>>>Howard C. Berkowitz
>>>Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 8:39 AM
>>>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>>>Subject: RE: NSSA
>>>
>>>
>>>I think a large part of the issue is that the questions are being
>>>posed with respect to protocol behavior, without any real clue of the
> >>problem to be solved (i.e., the particular topology in mind).
>>>
>>>
>>>>comments inline
>>>>
>>>>At 10:54 PM 1/8/2002 +0000, omar guarisco wrote:
>>>>>it's not possible to avoid conversion Type7 to Type5 configure the
>>>>>area NSSA as totally stub using the command on ABR
>>>>
>>>>Sure it is. Although technically, what happens is likely more of a
> >>>filtering of type 5 announcements vs an interpretation of P bit
>>>>settings leading to a decision not to convert type 7's to 5's.
>>>
>>>Stating things functionally, it certainly is possible to have an area
>>>be both totally stubby and not-so-stubby. The behavior of such an
>>>area is that it can have an ASBR that obtains external routes, and,
>>>assuming the ASBR does not have ABR functionality, sends the
>>>externals into both the local area and to area 0.0.0.0.
>>>
>>>Assume a separate ABR for this area. If the area is totally stubby,
>>>that ABR will inject only a default route.
>>>
>>>Having the same physical router as ABR and ASBR is a special case
>>>with additional characteristics. Is this the specific problem, Omar,
>>>you are trying to solve? Or are you trying to have the externals
>>>known only in the nonzero area?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>area 1 nssa no-summary
>>>>>
>>>>>so that a default route using LSA type 3 from the ABR
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Making the area totally stubby removes the inter area routing
>>>>information (Type 3 LSAs) from the area. It has nothing to do with
>>>>externals.
>>>>
>>>>>Another question: How it could be that on a NSSA area a router is
>>>>>ASBR is and also an ABR ??? Moreover that NSSA area won't support
>>>>>virual links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I take it you didn't check the link I provided which pictorially
>>>>describes this exact situation. The router is an ABR that has an
>>>>interface in the backbone, and interface in an NSSA area, and
>>>>happens to redistribute some routing information. In this case, it
> >>>wishes not to inject that routing information into the NSSA area,
>>>>but only into the rest of the OSPF domain. I'm completely unaware
>>>>of the relevance of virtual links in this scenario.
>>>>
>>>>Pete
>>>>
>>>
>>>I'm guessing the virtual link issue is a general question about
>>>NSSAs, rather than having anything to do with a specific topology. It
>>>is true that an area has to have transit capability to support VL's,
>>>so no type of stubby area will do so.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Thnks for helps
>>>>>Omar
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>From: Peter van Oene <pvo@usermail.com>
>>>>>>Reply-To: Peter van Oene <pvo@usermail.com>
>>>>>>To: "'ccielab@groupstudy.com'" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>>>>>>Subject: RE: NSSA
>>>>>>Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 17:33:24 -0500
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The below describes the situation where an ASBR happens to be an
NSSA
>>ABR
>>>>>>at the same time. In this case, the desire is to bring externals
into
>>>the
>>>>>>network on that router, yet not leak them into the NSSA area. The
>>>>>>no-redistribution command accomplishes that nicely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>However, I think the original poster was looking more for how to
>>restrict
>>>>>>the Type 7 to Type 5 conversion that the NSSA ABR will perform by
>>>>>>default. In this case, adding a summary address with the
not-advertise
>>>>>>option for the prefixes you wish to restrict accomplishes this.
The
>>>>>>following link is quite helpful in explaining both of these
situations
>>in
>>>>>>some detail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/104/nssa.html#2c
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Pete
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>At 01:30 PM 1/8/2002 -0800, Jeongwoo Park wrote:
>>>>>>>Make ASBR into ABR by doing
>>>>>>>router ospf 1
>>>>>>> area 1 nssa no-redistribution
>>>>>>>This way, there will be no type 7 generated
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>From: Christian C. Aguillo [mailto:chris_aguillo@alfalak.com]
>>>>>>>Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 4:46 AM
>>>>>>>To: GroupStudy
>> >>>>>Subject: NSSA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hi Friends,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How can I inject external routes to OSPF via NSSA ASBR wihtout
>>>>>>>conversion of
>>>>>>>the LSA-7 to LSA-5.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thanks and cheers....
Email Disclaimer
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally
privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone
else
is unauthorised.
If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
distribution
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is
prohibited
and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients any opinions or
advice
contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditions
expressed in
the governing KPMG client engagement letter.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:56:23 GMT-3