From: Chuck Church (cchurch@optonline.net)
Date: Tue Nov 19 2002 - 19:58:41 GMT-3
Hal,
RIP is important for a CCIE to know. Sure, no one's deploying it now,
but there's lots of RIP networks out there. If a CCIE didn't know how to
deal with FLSM/VLSM issues, they're going to look pretty silly when you try
to migrate to OSPF, and the whole network dies. Cisco want's CCIEs to be
able to handle anything, not just stuff that makes sense.
Chuck Church
CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE
----- Original Message -----
From: "Logan, Harold" <loganh@mccfl.edu>
To: "Chuck Church" <cchurch@optonline.net>; "John Underhill"
<steppenwolfe_2000@yahoo.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 5:07 PM
Subject: RE: Core subjects
> I agree with adding RIP, but this is something I'm a little annoyed about.
I know that classful-to-classless redistribution is something the IE loves
to hammer, and that's great'n all, but the techniques for dealing with it
are documented enough now that it isn't the headache it once was. I'm all
for Cisco removing IGRP from the lab, but I really don't see the need to
test classful/classless redistribution either. I mean, you have to look
pretty hard to find a router that doesn't support ripv2... even the dinky
little linksys routers will run version 2. I like the fact that they're
challenging us with mroe current technology rather than dinosaurs of routing
protocols, I just hope they didn't go through all the labs and do a find and
replace job to substitute ripv1 for igrp.
>
> </.02>
>
> Hal
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chuck Church [mailto:cchurch@optonline.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 2:18 PM
> > To: John Underhill; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: Re: Core subjects
> >
> >
> > John,
> >
> > If you've got the Caslow book, it breaks the topics into
> > 3 levels. Your
> > list looks about right, but I'd add RIP. With IGRP gone,
> > they're going to
> > focus more on RIP and it's 'quirks' when combined with VLSM
> > protocols. I'd
> > take IPX off the core list. It's not even distribution or
> > access layer at
> > this point :) If you've played around with a 3550 or 2950
> > yet, you'd know
> > there's a boat-load of QOS that they can do. Might add QOS
> > to the list to.
> > With LANE gone, ATM is pretty much just a WAN protocol,
> > pretty simple to
> > learn. Again, the Caslow/Pavlichenko book covers it well enough.
> >
> > Chuck Church
> > CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Underhill" <steppenwolfe_2000@yahoo.com>
> > To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 11:06 AM
> > Subject: Core subjects
> >
> >
> > > While reading through the posts yesterday, I noticed
> > > several people made reference to 'having the core down
> > > cold', and it occured to me.. what should I now
> > > consider the core? When I started studying for the lab
> > > about a year ago, the core was generally considered to
> > > be BGP, EIGRP, OSPF, IPX, ISDN, Frame, Bridging,
> > > Multicasting, and Switching. Can I still consider this
> > > to be true? Is ATM now considered a core subject, what
> > > about voice or IPSec? I mean, obviously these are
> > > subjects that one has to have a good working knowledge
> > > of, but should they now be considered to hold the same
> > > weight as the aforementioned subjects? Anyone out
> > > there willing to offer some reasonable advice as to
> > > the 'must know' subjects for the lab?
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > > Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Dec 03 2002 - 07:23:07 GMT-3