From: Howard C. Berkowitz (hcb@gettcomm.com)
Date: Wed May 19 2004 - 15:08:38 GMT-3
At 10:44 AM -0400 5/19/04, Scott Morris wrote:
>I've actually been pondering this for a while since the list ended up coming
>out... And I'm less sure about the strategy now than I was previously...
>
>Purchasing new equipment or updated equipment is certainly something of
>concern for all CCIE candidates as well as those who simply want to keep up
>with things. But the question also come in on the viability of these topics
>within one exam.
>
>IPv6 in and of itself is quite the topic. If you want to do it small, that
>seems easy. Yet IPv6 MBGP and IPv6 QoS are listed as topics which makes
>life more complicated.
The irony is that I haven't seen any official Cisco courseware -- as
opposed to their contributions to the IETF -- that particularly gets
into what IPv6 will and won't do for networks.
This may be a marketing strategy to get people to move into V6
whether they need it or not, and then be wanting a technology Cisco
is well prepared to provide. Don't get me wrong -- I believe that V6
is a good long-term replacement for V4, but the replacement needs to
be for the right reasons.
>
>PPPoE (expanding on L2TP) is listed as well as Mobile IP (which previously
>when users talked about it was likely a misnomer for LAM, but since Cisco
>mentions it that's a different story)... These are more oriented to service
>providers, yet they aren't listed as part of the SP CCIE topics.
Exactly. It makes a _little_ more sense if you look at Cisco's SP
track as not aimed at ISPs, but at broadband access providers.
There's nothing in their blueprints that deals with BGP, 2547,
(G)MPLS, etc., at the level of a sophisticated ISP or NSP (network
service provider, primarily a wholesaler to ISPs).
PPPoE, L2TP, etc., all have a great deal of utility in the broadband
edge marketplace, but that tends to be the focus of telcos, cable
providers, DSL providers, etc. Nortel never really figured out the
difference between an ISP and an access service provider -- and Cisco
seems to be making the same sort of error, although they really
should know better.
I'm also a little puzzled as to their motivation for the SP track at
all, since SPs rarely buy through VARs, and there are no incentives
for SPs to have certified people to get discounts.
>
>Interestingly enough, IPv6 is NOT listed for the service provider exam, yet
>enterprise network engineers need it?
Some will. The military is moving rapidly to it, and it's much more
of an enterprise protocol in Asia than in the Americas.
>
>That's completely my opinion on things and not a reflection on anything
>else... I just don't understand the logic. :)
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the outline structure itself makes
very little sense. It splits up connection-oriented technology under
several headings. IPv6 isn't in a logical place. Until I saw Cisco
put it under QoS, I never thought of it a major enabling technology
for QoS -- and I have been involved in the IETF v6 work.
If you REALLY want to get into challenges, start looking at IPv6
multihoming. This is NOT a solved problem.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jun 02 2004 - 11:12:13 GMT-3