From: Chuck Church (cchurch@optonline.net)
Date: Fri Nov 22 2002 - 17:34:24 GMT-3
Howard,
Totally agree with you. The lab doesn't really hit any topics to a
depth where most large enterprises operate. (Except maybe time management
and pain-tolerance :) R&S is really a "smorgasbord" of Cisco topics.
Funny you should mention the IBM stuff. I was on a conference call with TAC
and a mainframe guy once trying to resolve an issue with ATM machines not
working over STUN. After 2 or 3 minutes of discussion involving PUs, LUs,
snerms, etc; I stopped feeling like an engineer and started feeling more
like a foreign language student. Luckily the topic revolved back to IP
eventually. I guess if Cisco was to spin off a topic into it's own track,
BGP would get my vote. There's just so many ways to do a certain thing, and
about half of them are right!
Chuck Church
CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE
----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: Core subjects
> >Howard,
> >
> > True, the current R&S lab barely scratches the surface of BGP and
it's
> >current accepted techniques. But with only 8 hours, it's tough to
squeeze
> >much in about it. I'll admit I've never worked for an ISP, and would
> >probably flounder my first couple weeks at an ISP position. But I'm sure
> >many others on this list that have never worked for an ISP are in the
same
> >position. But other subjects on the lab are similar. DLSW, IPX? Those
> >are/were pretty lightly covered in the labs, compared to what real-world
> >companies do. I guess if you want something in writing that says you can
> >handle an ISP position, the Juniper certification is where it's at.
That's
> >just what I've heard though...
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Chuck Church
> >CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE
>
> Thanks, Chuck, and I'm really not trying to divert the thread too
> much off topic. From my personal experience, the light didn't dawn
> for me on BGP until I started studying routing policy (RPSL, the
> routing arbiter), etc., and finally figured out the _purpose_ of most
> of those knobs.
>
> Even more than DLSW, in CID, IBM protocols were always a joke, at
> least from my standpoint as having been an NCP/VTAM system
> programmer. There is so much to know on the IBM side that I couldn't
> see just studying the Cisco part being terribly useful.
>
> I'm still a believer in narrowing the scope and deepening the depth
> of the CCIE, using an awfully strange model -- the team specialties
> in the TAC. Even if that's not done, knowing the context and
> motivation of why certain protocols were developed, I think, makes it
> much easier to understand what they are doing. Knowing something
> about queueing theory, at a not terribly mathematical level, gives a
> lot of insight into QoS and performance. At least scanning through a
> computer science textbook about memory management and interrupt
> handling helps a great deal with switching paths, although the Inside
> IOS Architecture is superb.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Dec 03 2002 - 07:23:09 GMT-3