From: Scott Morris (swm@emanon.com)
Date: Wed Aug 10 2005 - 13:31:35 GMT-3
Given that the vast majority of "enterprise" networks out there run either
EIGRP or static routes, the R&S exam has never been about any one-person's
dream of reality. It's meant to test you on an understanding of a
technology, or more importantly how the router thinks.
There are some things that I agree with you about removing or not. But with
an industry movement to "always-on" technologies, there's not a lot of magic
in any of those unless you are sitting on the SP side of the demarc!
Otherwise it's a general magic that ensues. I wouldn't see much point in
testing on that. I personally wouldn't feel any better knowing that someone
had gone through the IE exam and had a little Metro-E or Gig-E to play with.
Pretty, but not useful on client-side.
But to have to think through other things is important. As for MPLS, it's
just Frame Relay on steroids anyway, so why would that be complex no matter
what point you're on? Like any technology though, it's what you do with it
and how you design it that makes it more or less complicated.
Many countries have ISDN all over the place, others do not. Just as much,
many countries have IPv6 all over the place, others do not. Personally, I
like ISDN much more than I like IPv6, but unfortunately, the lab isn't all
about me. It's about some semblance of a combination of everyone! Perhaps
security will increase in it's usage on the R&S lab, as nobody can argue
that security is playing a big part in what's going on.
As for your mathematical calculations, I believe we DO call them an expert
in Algrebra (hence R&S versus other topics). They have yet to come out with
the "CCIE et al." designation. If you have a Ph.D. in mathematics does that
mean you know it all? Didn't we have similar discussions a while back?
Relax, it'll all work out. If people spend time learning the underlying
technologies and concepts, it will easily track to other things in case they
run into ATM or ISDN networks IRL. ;)
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Godswill Oletu
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 12:10 PM
To: richard.harvey@nbs.nhs.uk; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: ISIS removal
Richard,
Borther, I have the same worry and concerns just like you. ISIS removal is a
bad taste, but not as bad and unfutunate as the removal of all the WAN
technologies.
Come 2006, the only true viable WAN technology that will be in the Lab will
be frame relay! ATM, ISDN, etc will all gone for good. To think of an
Internetworking Expert to only know how to implement frame relay gives me
some sad taste in my stomach.
Someone will say, but there is MPLS. I currently have an ATM/Frame relay
network and I am in the middle of migrating to this "almighty MPLS" people
have been making noise about. Remember that MPLS do not stand on its own. I
still find myself doing 'encapsulation frame-relay' ; I still do 'multilink
frame-relay'; I still do 'Frame-relay interface-dlci 100', etc......in
essence, this "almight MPLS" still rely on these other technologies to work
and if that is true, it is not a true WAN technology.
At the Provider's core, it might be a true MPLS core, but at the Customer's
end, you still have to confront some Frame-relay or ATM configurations, this
is why I am think MPLS is not a true WAN technology.
I am waiting for the day, that I will login to my Cisco Router is do:
!
#interface serial 0/0
#ip address 1.1.1.1 255.0.0.0
#encapsulation mpls
!
to configure MPLS (or some other configurations like the one baove)
If I still have to do:
!
#interface serial 0/0
#ip address 1.1.1.1 255.0.0.0
#encapsulation frame-relay
#frame-relay interface-dlci 100
#mpls ip or (tag-switching ip)
!
or
!
#interface ATM3/0.1 point-to-point
#ip address 10.20.100.1 255.255.255.0
#pvc 1/50
#encapsulation aal5snap
# mpls ip or (tag-switching ip)
!
to configure MPLS, I do not think it is a true WAN technology that have come
to replace all the "bad things" in Frame-relay and ATM. I am even ashame in
telling people that, we are migrating from ATM/Frame-relay to MPLS. Are we
really migrating? I think a better word will be, "We are enhancing our
current ATM/Frame-relay network by adding MPLS label switching"
I have heard about how metro-ethernet, Gigabyte-ethernet, IPSec VPN, DSL,
brodband, etc are replacing ISDN, ATM, etc in the market place today. But
remember that, to be a Cisco's version of an Internetwork expert, you do not
have to know all those emerging technologies, because Cisco will not test
you on those topics in their "new and improved" CCIE (R/S) Lab.
I am not saying that the CCIE (R/S) track is going to be any easier when all
these topic goes away! The protors are going to have a field day in testing
more stuffs and hard scenerios within the existing & remaining topics. At
the end of the day, they might even make it tougher, maybe to prove the
point that 'things are not easier'...Lets face the fact; If you drill a
student on Algebra and give him/her all the tough questions and problems in
algebra & calculus and that Student passed with a grade of 80%. We do not
call that Student an Expert in Mathematics; rather we call him/her an Expert
in Algebra & calculus! Because those two topics are not a fair
representation of all the other topics Mathematics. That student might not
know jack about trigonometry, probability, arithmetic, geometry, etc...the
list goes on....one is not saying CCIE (R/S) should test on all topics out
there, but there should be a fair representation, so that the person that
passed the test will be worth the name "Internetworking Expert".
Cisco might be boxing themselves and the value of this certification into a
corner. CCIEs use to be respected across the board in the IT industry to be
true experts, but come 2006, I do not think anyone who goes to Cisco's CCIE
blue print site even right now
(http://www.cisco.com/en/US/learning/le3/ccie/rs/lab_exam_blueprint.html)
and master the topics to be tested there and pass the Lab based on those
topics is an expert. Do not get me wrong, that individual will receive a
certificate from Cisco that he/she is an expert, but is lets be true to
ourselves, does the mastering of the topics listed in that blue print
qualify's one to be an Internetworking Expert?
I am not saying that all current CCIEs are experts either, but the only
measure of their knowledge that we all have is what they were tested on
(CCIE blue print), which use to be a fair representation of technologies out
there base on those topics, I can call anyone who pass the Lab today or
current CCIEs Experts, but come 2006, there will be a very big hole and
knowledge gap that it will be difficult to say they will be Internetworking
experts.
I hope Cisco is monitoring this group and they are listening.....Please
Cisco, we do not want to be Experts in OSPF, MULTICAST, BGP, etc you turn
around and start calling us EXPERTS in INTERNETWORKING.
A more better suggestion of CCIE certifications to Cisco will be:
CCIE (OSPF)
CCIE (MULTICAST)
CCIE (BGP)
CCIE (Frame-Relay)
CCIE (IPv6)
Cisco, do not devalue the CCIE (R/S) certification track, many of us chase
this certification because of its wealth of knowledge and its extensive
coverage of relevant topics, by watering it down, it will loss its lustral
and shine and in no distant future its Patronage and Fans!
my 0.2 cents
Godswill Oletu
----- Original Message -----
From: <richard.harvey@nbs.nhs.uk>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 9:04 AM
Subject: ISIS removal
> My is scheduled for the 15th Sept in Brussels. I have to say, I am a
> little concerned over the future worth of the routing and switching
> track - to qualify as an 'expert' level routing engineer and then no
> nothing of ISIS seems a little contradictory.
>
> I understand the enterprise/service-provider specialisation that Cisco is
> trying to impose here, but in the real world there is a much finer line
> between the customer and the service provider, especially when it comes to
> say, MPLS implementations. Not knowing anything of what goes on 'in the
> cloud' is a major shortfall.
>
> By removing ISIS, Cisco are punching a hole in the CCIE skillset that can
> only devalue the reputation of certified individuals. I believe it would
> have been better to just shift the emphasis off ISIS rather than shrinking
> the range of major topics to cover in preparation for the exam. Now we
> need to only master OSPF/RIPv2/EIGRP IGP's rather than the
> IGRP/RIPv1/RIPv2/EIGRP/OSPF/ISIS list that we were originally tested on.
>
> Just my opinion though. Comments?
>
>
> Richard Harvey
>
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> The National Blood Service.
>
> Do something amazing today - Give Blood.
>
> Please call 0845 7 711 711.
>
> You can visit us at www.blood.co.uk, or on
> BBC2, Ceefax page 465.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> The views expressed in this e-mail are those of
> the sender, and not necessarily those of the
> National Blood Service.
>
> This text confirms that this e-mail message
> and its attachments have been swept for the
> presence of computer viruses by the National
> Blood Service, however we cannot guarantee
> that they are virus free.
>
> All e-mails and their attachments to and from
> the nbs.nhs.uk domain are archived, and their
> contents may be monitored.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 04 2005 - 17:01:19 GMT-3