From: Scott Morris (swm@emanon.com)
Date: Thu Nov 18 2004 - 13:18:13 GMT-3
I can relate to the early morning thing, and I apologize for the tone on my
message.... (will calmly have more caffeine now)
I absolutely agree with you about learning the technologies versus being
limited to a particular list. But... The list is put out there by Cisco as
a way to give people guidelines. While it's not an end-all result, there
are political ramifications...
For example, token ring isn't listed as a topolgy any longer. And it's not
explicitly listed that it's NOT on there either. But it is well known that
TR has been removed. So, as long as we aren't splitting hairs with the
on/off idea. But discussions like this are not an NDA violation (which was
my trigger this morning).
If that were the case, just about everything that we ever discuss on here
would be considered NDA if it appears on a lab exam. Now, on the other
hand, I can tell everyone without a doubt that >I< had RIPv1 on my lab exam.
But being that I took it in 1999, I don't think anyone is going to consider
that an NDA violation or truly care about it. :) Changes to the blueprint
have superceded anyone's opinion on whether that matters.
Nobody I have seen has explicitly said whether they did or did not have it,
or what the topology looked like on their lab. So, we go with what we can
see. And that is the blueprint. I believe there is also a note that I saw
within the CCIE NetPro forums regarding RIPv1 where one of the proctors did
indeed say it was no longer a tested topic.
Still good to learn, but nothing worth worrying about NDA violations for.
Back to my caffeine,
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lijnse [mailto:Tom.Lijnse@globalknowledge.nl]
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 10:32 AM
To: swm@emanon.com; Rick; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: RIPv1 - yes or no
Hi Scott,
I must admit I was in a bit of a foul mood this morning and got a little
annoyed by some of the two or three line reactions to my emails, hence the
rant. I tried to make clear that I was just venting steam by putting the
<RANT> ... </RANT> on my conversation, but maybe I should simply not have
hit the send button.
Anyway, I was mainly annoyed with the whole "if it's not on the lab I don't
want to know anything about it" mentality that usually seems to go with
these questions.
Even if RIPv1 is not going to be on the specific lab you're getting I think
it's still worthwhile to spend some time on it just because it's a good way
to learn more about IP routing and IP routing protocols in general, as has
been pointed out by several people in this thread.
In that sense I also think that people should not limit themselves to
studying what's on the blueprint and nothing else.
I personally think that the CCIE is about trying to achieve true excellence
at Routing and Switching Technologies, not just ticking off topics off a
list and hoping that Cisco doesn't throw anything at you that isn't
specifically on the blueprint.
In that respect I find it rather interesting that you define the blueprint
as "...where they tell you the things that appear on the lab".
I personally never really took the blueprint as an all-inclusive list of
topics that appear on the lab, but more as a guideline to the core topics.
The things you really need to know inside and out. As far as I know that
doesn't really exclude the things that are not on that list from being fair
game on the lab.
But again, I may be wrong here.
I apologize if I offended people on the list with my opinion, but I tried to
make clear from the start that it was just that: my personal opinion.
Regards,
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Morris [mailto:swm@emanon.com]
Sent: donderdag 18 november 2004 14:25
To: Tom Lijnse; 'Rick'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: RIPv1 - yes or no
Oh my god people... Calm down.
Look at the CCIE blueprint, where they tell you the things that appear on
the lab.... It specifically says "RIPv2".
A previous note on the blueprint page (replaced by the voip and ipv6
news)
had stated that RIPv1 was no longer to be tested.
So all concepts of NDA discussions aside, if the CCIE program themselves
mentions things like that, I think it allows the topic to be discussed by
everyone else. That would be considered 'public domain' information.
I will agree with John's original message that just because it's off doesn't
mean that it's not worthwhile to have a feeling for the impact on the
network. What are the implications of running RIPv2 where "auto-summary"
MUST be left on?
Whether it's on or not should be irrelevant to people wanting to understand
things. But the concept of something being on the exam or not at a very
general level hardly constitues the idea of 'test content' referred to
below.
Relax,
Scott Morris, MCSE, CCDP, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider)
#4713, JNCIP, CCNA-WAN Switching, CCSP, Cable Communications Specialist, IP
Telephony Support Specialist, IP Telephony Design Specialist, CISSP CCSI
#21903 swm@emanon.com
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Tom
Lijnse
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 3:07 AM
To: Rick; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: RIPv1 - yes or no
<RANT>
Hi Rick,
Of course you can claim that without violating the NDA. Simply making claims
out of the blue without explaining how you came to this marvelous insight
can never be considered breaking the NDA.
All I was saying (if you even bothered to read my post) is that if somebody
would make a statement on this list as to if RIPv1 was on the specific exam
that they took, it could be considered an NDA violation.
For reference have a look at:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/learning/le3/ccie/exam/violation_rules.html
Even though this is not the actual agreement itself it pretty clearly
states:
- Discussions concerning test content with anyone other than the proctor
without express written permission from the CCIE department
- Posting of test content to study groups internal to Cisco or external to
Cisco with the exception of ccie-lab@cisco.com
- Forwarding of test information to persons or companies without the express
written permission of the CCIE program
Of course making statements about a certain topic (like RIPv1) being on your
test would be a very minor infraction and I don't think Cisco would come
after you in full force.
Of course I could be wrong here. I'm not a lawyer, but please be kind enough
to point out exactly where my reasoning goes wrong instead of making blanket
statements and claiming I have never read the NDA (which of course I did
when I took the test, though I must admit I may not remember every single
word since I had other things to exercise my brains with that day).
Regards,
Tom
</RANT>
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Sent: donderdag 18 november 2004 1:48
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: RIPv1 - yes or no
It appears most of the people who claim something violates the NDA has never
read it. I will say very loud and clear, without violating the NDA, that
RIPv1 is not on the CCIE R&S lab.
Rick
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Matus" <jmatus@pacbell.net>
To: "Joseph D. Phillips" <josephdphillips@fastmail.us>; "Tom Lijnse"
<Tom.Lijnse@globalknowledge.nl>; "Ivan Ostre9" <ivan.ostres@snt.hr>;
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: RIPv1 - yes or no
> i'll have to disagree with joe on part of this........yes, it is off
of
the
> exam, but i think it is worth understanding how it works and all of
it's
> 'flaws'. i think you gain a better understanding of true routing by
using
> ripv1 than with ripv2 because of the problems associated with, or the
lack
> thereof, vlsm's....
>
>
> Regards,
>
> John D. Matus
> MCSE, CCNP
> Office: 818-782-2061
> Cell: 818-430-8372
> jmatus@pacbell.net
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joseph D. Phillips" <josephdphillips@fastmail.us>
> To: "Tom Lijnse" <Tom.Lijnse@globalknowledge.nl>; "Ivan Ostre9"
> <ivan.ostres@snt.hr>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 6:43 AM
> Subject: Re: RIPv1 - yes or no
>
>
> > RIPv1 was taken off the lab over a year ago. This is not a violation
of
> > the
> > NDA. I've taken it four times and the proctor specifically states
before
> > you
> > take the exam that there's no RIPv1. Don't worry about it. Don't
study
it.
> > Let it die.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Tom Lijnse" <Tom.Lijnse@globalknowledge.nl>
> > To: "Ivan Ostre9" <ivan.ostres@snt.hr>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 6:07 AM
> > Subject: RE: RIPv1 - yes or no
> >
> >
> >> Hi Ivan,
> >>
> >> I think nobody except Cisco could confirm something like that. It
is
not
> > on the blueprint, but it is also not specifically excluded (like for
> > instance Token Ring and IGRP). Therefore it is in a grey area where
it
> > would
> > be fair game on the lab, though Cisco probably does not consider it
a
core
> > topic, since it's not in the blueprint.
> >>
> >> The only way to way to really confirm that it is or is not on the
lab
> > would be by people breaking the NDA to tell you if they had it on
their
> > specific lab or not. And even then it could always be introduced or
left
> > out
> > of future labs at Cisco's will, since it is not on the list of
excluded
> > topics and is configurable on the equipment.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, I personally feel that anybody who is
comfortable
with
> > IP (VLSM, subnetting, summarization) and the IP Routing protocols at
the
> > CCIE level should have the skills to deal with RIPv1. Just practice
with
> > it
> > for a bit to get a feel for typical peculiarities of a classfull
protocol,
> > but don't spend weeks on it.
> >>
> >> Of course this is just my personal interpretation of Cisco's
published
> > guidelines, so I'd definitely be interested to hear what other
people
> > think
> > of this.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Tom Lijnse
> >>
> >> CCIE #11031
> >> Global Knowledge Netherlands
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On
Behalf Of
> > Ivan Ostre9
> >> Sent: woensdag 17 november 2004 13:17
> >> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >> Subject: RIPv1 - yes or no
> >>
> >> Hello GS,
> >>
> >> I just have seen on
> >>
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/learning/le3/ccie/rs/lab_exam_blueprint.html
> > that
> >> RIPv1 is NOT in the Lab blueprint. Can someone confirm for sure
that
> >> RIPv1
> >> is/is not on the lab?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Ivan
> >>
> >> P.S: If it's not, I'll miss those FSLM/VSLM shit... :-)
> >>
> >> [GroupStudy removed an attachment of type application/ms-tnef which
had
a
> > name of winmail.dat]
> >>
> >>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Dec 02 2004 - 06:57:47 GMT-3