From: ccie2be (ccie2be@nyc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Feb 11 2005 - 11:52:48 GMT-3
Roger,
That's my point exactly.
I can list one example after another where the Doc-cd is insufficient in
providing a complete explanation.
2 quick examples:
Look up the syntax of the police command in the Command Reference under QoS.
The usage guidance comes no where close to explaining which syntax to use
under which circumstance.
Also, consider the BGP command reference on the Doc-CD. To see what I think
this Command Reference should look like, you have to read
the Parkhurst book on BGP. Why should it be useful to buy the Parkhurst BGP
Command Reference? Shouldn't the Cisco documentation be
good enough that this book wouldn't be useful?
To my way of thinking, many, if not most of the examples shown in the
Command Reference are quite useless because so much needed info
is just left out. Very often, for example, no mention is made of any
pre-requisites needed for the command to work nor is mention made of what
other commands are needed for this command to work.
The end result being that if you don't already know 95% of the relevant
information regarding a command, you're up the creek - at least in the lab.
Now, others have made the argument that compared to other vendor's
documentation, the Cisco documentation is much better. And, that may
be true. But, so what? Cisco prides itself on being the market leader in
routing and switching and by having the most rigorous Certification
program.
Just imagine what the Cisco documentation would look like if the quality of
it were on par with the skill needed to pass the lab.
Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: "McNeace, Roger" <RMcNeace@ciena.com>
To: "'Yasser Aly'" <yaseraly00@yahoo.com>; "ccie2be" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>;
"Richard Dumoulin" <Richard.Dumoulin@vanco.fr>; "Andy"
<AndyMrozek@yahoo.com>; "'Brian Dennis'" <bdennis@internetworkexpert.com>;
"'Group Study'" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 9:22 AM
Subject: RE: Quality of Cisco Documentation
> I personally read the whole DOC CD in preparation for the CCIE, but not
for understanding but rather to be intimately familiar where everything in
the CD is located, especially the obscure stuff. For me the DOC Cd is their
to refresh your memory on forgotten syntax and basic explanation of
arguments for commands. You definitely need to tap other resources for
understanding of the technologies. Example, IS-IS is only maybe 15 pages in
the DOC CD, you will be sorely unprepared if that was your only resource on
that topic.
>
> Roger McNeace CCIE#12777
> Prinicipal Network Engineer
> Ciena Corporation
> 410-694-5805
> rmcneace@ciena.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yasser Aly [mailto:yaseraly00@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 4:25 AM
> To: ccie2be; Richard Dumoulin; Andy; 'Brian Dennis'; 'Group Study'
> Subject: Re: Quality of Cisco Documentation
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> For me I didn't rely on documentation CD. I didn't study it from inside
out as some do.
>
> During studying for CCIE I mainly relied on the following:
>
> - Most common preparation books for CCIE like, TCP/IP Vol1 & 2, Practical
Studies 1&2, BGP For Halabi, and many others that commonly mentioned on the
list from time to time.
> - InternetworkExpert R&S workbook - The most important section during my
preparation -
> - CCO:
> - Lots and lots of hands on practicing.
> - I passed by the Doc CD only at the very end of my preparation just to be
familier of where to find information I would like to find during the exam.
>
> Documentation CD definitely inlcudes all the info you need to pass the
exam. However, it does not provide complex examples that integrate
technologies together like you find with commercial workbooks and hence can
not be only used by itself as the sole source to study from.
>
> So to answer your question, the way documneation CD is written at makes
it includes all the information needed but lacks detailed examples you will
find at CCO. It is like an index of the book, not the whole book itself.
>
> I guess that studying only DOC CD is very exhaustive time coonsuming
process and still you are missing a lot for your preparation that needs to
be learnt from other sources mentioned above.
>
> This strategy worked for me to pass the lab but what works for me doesn't
work for another and vice versa.
>
> Just my openion.
>
> Yasser
>
> ccie2be <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> 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"
> To: "Andy" ; "'Brian Dennis'"
> ; "'ccie2be'" ; "'Group
> Study'"
> 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