From: Jason Wist (Jason.Wist@lvs1.com)
Date: Mon May 01 2006 - 10:26:36 ART
Scott,
With all due respect, perhaps us "lurkers" would prefer to be called
something like "passive members" or something. I have met all the
criteria to participate and have attempted my lab twice to no avail so
far. However, I have learned a ton from "lurking" the threads without
having to or being able initiate or respond.
My last post on this topic was somewhat in support for IPExpert for how
they were very accessible right after my unsuccessful bootcamp and took
action immediately. That being said, I agree that the members of this
list should be made aware of the accuracy and quality of any of the
vendors' products (given IPExpert's presence, this should improve their
product dramatically and perhaps other vendors can learn from this as
well to improve theirs).
Which speaks to another point you made about CCIE's credibility, I do
agree with you that by falsifying credentials discredits a program,
which was in large part the problem with the IPExpert bootcamp I
attended. Our instructor did not offer his CCIE number, but eluded to
being a 2 CCIE (R&S and Security). Given that any CCIE instructor I
have had in the past has offered their number, this struck the class as
unusual that it was not readily offered. Not to mention it was
advertised that you, Scott, were to be instructing the bootcamp and only
upon arrival at the bootcamp it was discovered you wouldn't be. Anyway,
an inquiry was made to IPExpert and it still has not been confirmed that
this individual has their CCIE Security (instructor), and it still is
not posted by the CCIE validation tool.
Therefore, I think it is only fair that people spending ~$600 or so for
materials or ~$4500 on bootcamps are forewarned on the shortcomings of
the product so they can make their own assessment on the value/risk they
are willing to accept. I hope that this list can get back to the task
at hand.
Regards,
J
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 01 2006 - 06:33:20 ART