From: ccie2be (ccie2be@nyc.rr.com)
Date: Wed May 19 2004 - 16:37:04 GMT-3
Along with all this discussion of IPV6 and other new topics, has there been
any mention of when these new topics will be included in the lab? I recall
hearing that as of August this year, Cisco will be moving to a new version
of IOS in the lab. Are all these new topics expected to start appearing at
that point?
Thanks
----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 2:08 PM
Subject: RE: CCIE LAB TOPICS!!!
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials from:
> http://shop.groupstudy.com
>
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jun 02 2004 - 11:12:13 GMT-3