From: Balaji Siva (bsivasub@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Feb 11 2005 - 00:21:37 GMT-3
Tim,
Your rephrased statement is totally different from your prior
statement. Documentation CD is not developed for or claimed to be
CCIE exam study guide by cisco.
B
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ccie2be" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>
> To: "Richard Dumoulin" <Richard.Dumoulin@vanco.fr>; "Andy"
> <AndyMrozek@yahoo.com>; "'Brian Dennis'" <bdennis@internetworkexpert.com>;
> "'Group Study'" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 2:42 PM
> Subject: Re: Quality of Cisco Documentation
>
> > Richard, Brian, et al,
> >
> > Let me phrase the question a little differently.
> >
> > Do you think the documentation on just the Doc - CD is good enough that it
> > could be your only source of information used to prepare for the lab?
> >
> > Let's assume you had thoroughly studied the doc-CD and knew it inside out,
> > but that's all you studied. Do you think you could pass the lab?
> >
> > I rest my case.
> >
> > Tim
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Richard Dumoulin" <Richard.Dumoulin@vanco.fr>
> > To: "Andy" <AndyMrozek@yahoo.com>; "'Brian Dennis'"
> > <bdennis@internetworkexpert.com>; "'ccie2be'" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>;
> "'Group
> > Study'" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 3:55 PM
> > Subject: RE: Quality of Cisco Documentation
> >
> >
> > > Can you provide the links please? I am curious,
> > >
> > > -- Richard
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Andy [mailto:AndyMrozek@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 9:47 PM
> > > To: 'Brian Dennis'; Richard Dumoulin; 'ccie2be'; 'Group Study'
> > > Subject: RE: Quality of Cisco Documentation
> > >
> > > Thank you for the links , and I believe it is safe to say that if you
> see
> > > /univercd within url that is is reachable ? I wasn't under the
> impression
> > > that we were speaking specifically in regards to internetworking
> > companies.
> > > The thread asked if there were any other comparisons of a company who
> had
> > > docs that may be deemed better when viewed from a technical written
> > > perspective. I was just providing an example. Anytime I am looking up a
> > > piece of info of how linux may work I simply know that go to redhat
> first
> > as
> > > they always have clear concise articles even organized by build of
> kernel.
> > I
> > > think docCD is great , but is there room for improvement ? I believe so.
> > > Again thanks for the links..
> > >
> > > -Andy
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Brian Dennis [mailto:bdennis@internetworkexpert.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 12:42 PM
> > > To: Andy; Richard Dumoulin; ccie2be; Group Study
> > > Subject: RE: Quality of Cisco Documentation
> > >
> > > There are tons of good examples from the configuration guides on the
> > > documentation CD.
> > >
> > > Configuring IP Multicast Routing
> > >
> >
> http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122cgcr/fipr
> > > _c/ipcpt3/1cfmulti.htm
> > >
> > > Configuring BGP
> > >
> >
> http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122cgcr/fipr
> > > _c/ipcprt2/1cfbgp.htm
> > >
> > > etc, etc, etc, etc
> > >
> > > You should also look at the "new feature" documentation:
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122newft/122
> > > t/index.htm
> > >
> > > Not to mention all the design guides and troubleshooting information on
> > the
> > > CD:
> > >
> > > Internetwork Design Guide
> > > http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/idg4/index.htm
> > >
> > > Internetwork Troubleshooting Handbook
> > > http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/itg_v1/index.htm
> > >
> > > Internetworking Case Studies
> > > http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/itg_v1/index.htm
> > >
> > > Internetworking Technology Handbook
> > > http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/ito_doc/index.htm
> > >
> > > Lastly I would not put Redhat in the same category as Juniper, Cisco, or
> > > Extreme as a networking equipment vendor ;-)
> > >
> > > Brian Dennis, CCIE #2210 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security)
> > > bdennis@internetworkexpert.com
> > >
> > > Internetwork Expert, Inc.
> > > http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
> > > Toll Free: 877-224-8987
> > > Direct: 775-745-6404 (Outside the US and Canada)
> > > ________________________________________
> > > From: Andy [mailto:AndyMrozek@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 12:26 PM
> > > To: 'Richard Dumoulin'; Brian Dennis; 'ccie2be'; 'Group Study'
> > > Subject: RE: Quality of Cisco Documentation
> > >
> > > But are they are available on the Web ??? That is key... Make sure the
> > > section you are viewing are within the scope of the /univercd directory
> > > base.... I am not saying that it is horrible by far... Brian just asked
> if
> > > someone has an example of something Thought better quality than cisco...
> I
> > > gave an example being Redhat.. So do you have some of these examples ???
> > >
> > > ________________________________________
> > > From: Richard Dumoulin [mailto:Richard.Dumoulin@vanco.fr]
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 12:22 PM
> > > To: Andy; 'Brian Dennis'; 'ccie2be'; 'Group Study'
> > > Subject: RE: Quality of Cisco Documentation
> > >
> > > Then you are missing the Cisco scenario based doc on the Web!
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Andy [mailto:AndyMrozek@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 7:56 PM
> > > To: 'Brian Dennis'; 'ccie2be'; 'Group Study'
> > > Subject: RE: Quality of Cisco Documentation
> > > I can REHAT LINUX by far .... Very detailed , scenario based easy to
> read
> > > docs... I look for scenario based examples , not just a command option1
> > > option2 type thing , when you look at cisco command ref the guideline
> > > section is very brief , some of them are fine but others leave you
> > wondering
> > >
> > > ...
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> > > Brian Dennis
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 10:50 AM
> > > To: ccie2be; Group Study
> > > Subject: RE: Quality of Cisco Documentation
> > > Tim,
> > > Can you give an example of another vendor that puts out a better
> > > documentation CD?
> > > Brian Dennis, CCIE #2210 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security)
> > > bdennis@internetworkexpert.com
> > >
> > > Internetwork Expert, Inc.
> > > http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
> > > Toll Free: 877-224-8987
> > > Direct: 775-745-6404 (Outside the US and Canada)
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> > > ccie2be
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 8:34 AM
> > > To: Group Study
> > > Subject: Quality of Cisco Documentation
> > > Hi guys,
> > > I'm just wondering how many people think like I do that Cisco
> > > Documentation is
> > > extremely poor
> > > especially what's included on the Doc-CD?
> > > Aside from complaining about how terrible it is, do you think there's
> > > anything
> > > that can be done that would make Cisco vastly improve the quality of
> > > it's
> > > documentation?
> > >
> > > Personally, I think Cisco should demand the same level of quality from
> > > it's
> > > documentation as it does for potential ccie's.
> > > Can you imagine how good the documentation would be if the quality of
> > > the
> > > documentation had to be as high as the skills
> > > needed to pass the ccie lab?
> > > What's your opinion?
> > > Tim
> > > _______________________________________________________________________
> > > Subscription information may be found at:
> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> > >
> > >
> > > **********************************************************************
> > > Any opinions expressed in the email are those of the individual and not
> > > necessarily the company. This email and any files transmitted with it
> are
> > > confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you
> are
> > > not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering it
> to
> > > the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in
> > > error and that any dissemination, distribution, copying or use is
> strictly
> > > prohibited.
> > >
> > > If you have received this email in error, or if you are concerned with
> the
> > > content of this email please e-mail to: e-security.support@vanco.info
> > >
> > > The contents of an attachment to this e-mail may contain software
> viruses
> > > which could damage your own computer system. While the sender has taken
> > > every reasonable precaution to minimise this risk, we cannot accept
> > > liability for any damage which you sustain as a result of software
> > viruses.
> > > You should carry out your own virus checks before opening any
> attachments
> > to
> > > this e-mail.
> > > **********************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Mar 03 2005 - 08:51:19 GMT-3