From: subodh.rawat@wipro.com
Date: Wed Nov 14 2007 - 06:45:01 ART
Congratulations Jesse.
Keep going.
Subodh
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Gary Duncanson
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 2:44 PM
To: Jesse Loggins (CCIE#14661)
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: CCIE Important Interview Quesition asked by Sunrise, Swiss
There's a message there for all of us I think!
Well done Jesse.
Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jesse Loggins (CCIE#14661)" <jlogginsccie@san.rr.com>
To: "Chris Riling" <criling@gmail.com>; "Carpenter, Michael"
<Michael.Carpenter@nationalcity.com>
Cc: <smorris@ipexpert.com>; "Scott Vermillion"
<scott_ccie_list@it-ag.com>; "Dennis Dumont" <dfdumont@yahoo.com>;
"Adato, Leon"
<Leon.Adato@nationalcity.com>; "William Nellis" <nellis_iv@yahoo.com>;
"darth router" <darklordrouter@gmail.com>; <M_A_Jones@dell.com>;
<cisconuts@hotmail.com>; <joe@affirmedsystems.com>;
<pauld@marshallcomm.com>; <tom.nohwa@gmail.com>;
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>; "Marci Carpenter" <marcarpe@cisco.com>;
"Leon_home" <leon@adatofamily.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 1:05 AM
Subject: Re: CCIE Important Interview Quesition asked by Sunrise, Swiss
> Wow this thread is still going? I responed to the original writer,
> almost started a war, went and passed another CCIE and it's still
> alive. There has to be a GS record for longest running thread. Not
> realy I just wrote to say I joined the ranks of CCIE's with more than
> one, in the middle starting all of this controversy. Now on to the
> next one hmm ..... I'm thinking security based on my experience.
>
>
>
> Jesse Loggins
> CCIE#14661 (R&S, Service Provider)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Riling" <criling@gmail.com>
> To: "Carpenter, Michael" <Michael.Carpenter@nationalcity.com>
> Cc: <smorris@ipexpert.com>; "Scott Vermillion"
> <scott_ccie_list@it-ag.com>; "Dennis Dumont" <dfdumont@yahoo.com>;
> "Adato, Leon" <Leon.Adato@nationalcity.com>; "William Nellis"
> <nellis_iv@yahoo.com>; "darth router" <darklordrouter@gmail.com>;
> <M_A_Jones@dell.com>; <cisconuts@hotmail.com>;
> <joe@affirmedsystems.com>; <pauld@marshallcomm.com>;
> <jlogginsccie@san.rr.com>; <tom.nohwa@gmail.com>;
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>; "Marci Carpenter"
> <marcarpe@cisco.com>; "Leon_home" <leon@adatofamily.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 2:05 PM
> Subject: Re: CCIE Important Interview Quesition asked by Sunrise,
> Swiss
>
>
>> Nice!
>>
>> On 11/12/07, Carpenter, Michael <Michael.Carpenter@nationalcity.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> really happened example: College of Ohio Works First Electronic
>>> Center for Educational Services
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: Scott Morris [mailto:smorris@ipexpert.com]
>>> Sent: Mon 11/12/2007 2:43 PM
>>> To: 'Scott Vermillion'; 'Dennis Dumont'; Adato, Leon; 'William
>>> Nellis'; 'darth router'; M_A_Jones@dell.com
>>> Cc: cisconuts@hotmail.com; joe@affirmedsystems.com;
>>> pauld@marshallcomm.com ; jlogginsccie@san.rr.com;
>>> tom.nohwa@gmail.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com; 'Marci Carpenter';
>>> Carpenter, Michael; 'Leon_home'
>>> Subject: RE: CCIE Important Interview Quesition asked by Sunrise,
>>> Swiss
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> hehehe... Very true. I remember a few years back a buddy of mine
wanted
>>> to
>>> start a user's group in northern CA and thought that Bay Area
Routing
>>> Freaks
>>> sounded cool until I burst out laughing and told him that the
acronym
>>> would
>>> scare people away...
>>>
>>> :)
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Scott Vermillion [mailto:scott_ccie_list@it-ag.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 2:19 PM
>>> To: smorris@ipexpert.com; 'Dennis Dumont'; 'Adato, Leon'; 'William
>>> Nellis';
>>> 'darth router'; M_A_Jones@dell.com
>>> Cc: cisconuts@hotmail.com; joe@affirmedsystems.com;
>>> pauld@marshallcomm.com
>>> ;
>>> jlogginsccie@san.rr.com; tom.nohwa@gmail.com;
ccielab@groupstudy.com;
>>> 'Marci
>>> Carpenter'; 'Carpenter, Michael'; 'Leon_home'
>>> Subject: RE: CCIE Important Interview Quesition asked by Sunrise,
Swiss
>>>
>>>
>>> >Any ideas for names, by the way? I think that Networkers
Anonymous
>>> >wouldn't give the right connotation. ;)
>>>
>>> Especially since that would acronym to "NA" (as in "Not
Applicable")...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Dennis Dumont [mailto:dfdumont@yahoo.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 12:38 PM
>>> To: Adato, Leon; William Nellis; Scott Vermillion; swm@emanon.com;
darth
>>> router; M_A_Jones@dell.com
>>> Cc: cisconuts@hotmail.com; joe@affirmedsystems.com;
>>> pauld@marshallcomm.com
>>> ;
>>> jlogginsccie@san.rr.com; tom.nohwa@gmail.com;
ccielab@groupstudy.com;
>>> Marci
>>> Carpenter; Carpenter, Michael; Leon_home
>>> Subject: RE: CCIE Important Interview Quesition asked by Sunrise,
Swiss
>>>
>>> Let me expand on the idea of a guild a bit for clarity.
>>>
>>> An apprentice is anyone who has completed some form of training.
This
>>> could
>>> be as simple as a completed series at someone like an ITT Tech
>>> Institute,
>>> or
>>> a BS in computer science. This gets you membership into the 'club'
you
>>> would only need to submit you 'credentials' and get assigned to a
local
>>> 'journeyman'
>>> for subsequent training and experience. In the best of all possible
>>> worlds
>>> that person would be at your current employer but that assumes a
high
>>> level
>>> of penetration - and I won't make that assumption. No fez, and no
back
>>> rooms filled with cigar smoke - just fill out the paper work and you
get
>>> your 'card' back in the mail with a letter to contact your local
>>> Journeyman.
>>> And She/he also gets one letting her/him know you exist. After that
its
>>> between the two of you.
>>>
>>> Journeyman is a second submission of credentials, and I'd consider
all
>>> current numbered CCIE's to already be in this position. I'd likely
also
>>> include a few other industry certs that have similar scope and
>>> recognition
>>> within their respective disciplines. I'm thinking of things like
the
>>> Master
>>> Oracle certification, or the Redhat Certified Architect. Note this
>>> WOULD
>>> NOT BE SPECIFIC TO NETWORKING!!! An advanced (and preferably
>>> practical) vendor certification would be valid for entry into this
>>> level.
>>> It would also allow you to take on Apprentices and part of your
>>> CONTINUED
>>> CERTIFICATION would be dependent upon your working with Apprentices,
and
>>> THEIR SUCCESS. After all you don't have to be a good teacher for
>>> someone
>>> to
>>> learn from you. However the converse is also true - if you know
nothing
>>> no
>>> one can learn anything from you either. This keeps the tie to
industry
>>> certification for recognition (of the Journeyman level) and also
begins
>>> the
>>> split into various Disciplines. A Journeyman would be encouraged to
>>> pursue
>>> multiple disciplines.
>>>
>>> As for Master, I really think their are only a very few people who
have
>>> demonstrated significant contribution to the art to qualify.
>>> Furthermore
>>> I
>>> think you have to also demonstrate significant contribution to the
art
>>> to
>>> gain entrance. No one can deny the contributions of people like
Scott
>>> Morris(Nearly everything Networking), Linus Torvalds
>>> (Linux) or Larry Wall (Perl). It would be the first task to get
these
>>> people and others like them not only to promulgate the idea, but
also to
>>> sit
>>> on the board to review submissions (for Masters).
>>>
>>> For Master class I'm specifically proposing a submission process
similar
>>> to
>>> what the people at OpenGroup (http://www.opengroup.org/itac/) are
trying
>>> to
>>> do - but with a purely technical focus. It would entail an actual
>>> project
>>> (including ALL DOCUMENTATION) wherein it could be demonstrated that
a
>>> NOVEL
>>> APPROACH or a NEW TECHNOLOGY had been applied or created.
>>> These would then feed into the training material for other levels.
>>>
>>> This approach solves the issue of technology innovating us into
>>> oblivion,
>>> as
>>> this feedback loop keeps everyone moving forward. It also solves
the
>>> issue
>>> of what makes a 'master' by using the same process used for granting
a
>>> PhD.
>>> You must innovate.
>>> The guild then becomes one of the bodies moving the art forward,
rather
>>> then
>>> trying to keep up. Also similar to a PhD, the Master classification
>>> would
>>> be in a particular discipline, say Database, Programming,
Networking,
>>> System
>>> Mgmt, etc.
>>> There is also the possibility of Intellectual Property rights. In
this
>>> I
>>> can see under certain circumstances that the guild would own (the IP
of)
>>> the
>>> submission and would have the right to not only disseminate the IP
to
>>> its
>>> members, but also gain financial backing for its licensing. After
all
>>> we
>>> have to figure out how to PAY for such an organization and I'm not
very
>>> fond
>>> of fees - although I think for a while it would have to be that.
>>>
>>> I hope that helps clarify my idea. Feel free to tear this one apart
-
>>> or
>>> chime in support. I really do think we need something to pull us
out of
>>> the
>>> mess we are in now. There is no way to determine right now a good
IT
>>> person
>>> from a mediocre one - and mediocrity is what keeps our salaries low
and
>>> removes us from consideration for higher positions. After all this
a
>>> free
>>> market and the supply (of bodies with some
>>> certification) is high compared with demand. That is why CCIE's in
>>> Cleveland,OH can bank on about 80K/yr from a large employer - at
best.
>>> I
>>> don't want to be in that realm any longer. I want my kids to think,
"If
>>> I
>>> want to make some REAL money I can become a Lawyer, a Doctor or a IT
>>> Master."
>>>
>>> Yeah I'm dreaming but then isn't that the point? See the goal and
move
>>> toward it - don't complain about not being there yet.
>>>
>>> Another $0.02
>>>
>>> Dennis Dumont
>>>
>>> --- "Adato, Leon" <Leon.Adato@nationalcity.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Sorry for the late reply, but just a counterpoint to Scott and
>>> > William's
>>> > thoughts:
>>> >
>>> > What Dennis *might* be suggesting is the beginning of the
evolutionary
>>> > process that gives us today's AMA (American Medical Association).
>>> >
>>> > One of the challenges I find with the "50 or so"
>>> > organizations is that
>>> > they are largely vendor-based. CCIE does not apply to Nortel. MCSE
>>> > does not apply to Novel. RedHat certification does not indicate
AIX
>>> > expertise. It may imply a level of conceptual familiarity, or even
>>> > experience based on the likelyhood of cross-platform environments.
But
>>> > an Ophthalmologist is not licensed only for Alcon brand techniques
or
>>> > procedures. And taking it further, even if you go to a plastic
>>> > surgeon, you can safely assume that they can start an IV, perform
an
>>> > emergency tracheotomy, give CPR, etc. Even if you wouldn't trust a
>>> > cardiologist to do factial reconstructive surgery, you know they
>>> > understand the fundamentals.
>>> >
>>> > So what I'm talking about is a vendor-agnostic organization that
goes
>>> > beyond the "clubs" that I see out there today (dba associations
and
>>> > the like). This group would set the curriculum for the training
>>> > organizations. It might even administer centralized standard
testing
>>> > that would be distributed or hosted by local training org's.
>>> >
>>> > Speaking to the guild metaphor (and it's only a metaphor), I don't
see
>>> > it as a question of good ol' boys in fez's with secret handshakes
as
>>> > much as a more formalized process of ownership and mentorship.
>>> > Studying under an IT mentor would give the mentor an extra set of
>>> > hands for certain tasks, and it would provide the apprentice with
name
>>> > association and the chance to experience environments they might
not
>>> > have access to on their own merits.
>>> >
>>> > I am, of course, extrapolating a lot of political what-if's to
>>> > continue to overlay the medical metaphore onto IT, but I see it
not
>>> > only as possible but also beneficial.
>>> >
>>> > Stepping back from my (typical, for those on this list who don't
know
>>> > me) naieve rosey-sunglasses outlook, I would submit the following
>>> > observations based on 17 years of involvement in IT:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 1) no automated test can accurately weed out "paper tigers".
>>> > 1a) practical tests such as in the CCIE do a better job, but it's
>>> > still possible to "fake it"
>>> > 2) prolonged interaction - both with an individual and watching
that
>>> > individual work in real situations - rarely will fail to separate
>>> > those who actually know a topic from those who do not.
>>> >
>>> > Presuming those 2 (ok, 2.5) items to be true, it suggests that
direct
>>> > observation over time is the best way to "certify"
>>> > what someone actually
>>> > knows. The challenge in IT is that the only time this happens is
when
>>> > someone has been hired for a job. And the problem there includes 2
>>> > realities:
>>> > 1) when a person is deemed not-knowledgeable, companies are
limited in
>>> > what they can tell the NEXT employer
>>> > 2) at higher levels (CCIE, for example), the person being hired is
>>> > often supposed to be the best expert, so by definition there is
>>> > frequently no peer-level employee to accurately identify what this
>>> > person does or does not know.
>>> >
>>> > The apprentice - journeyman - master (or some modern
>>> > equivalent) would
>>> > mitigate that, and might even boost IT workers value in the eyes
of
>>> > employers and businesses. Having a master craftsman on your staff
may
>>> > mean something to customers and investors.
>>> >
>>> > Leon Adato
>>> > ==============
>>> > "Measure what is measurable, and make measurable what is not so"
>>> > - Galileo
>>> > Reply to: adatole@yahoo.com
>>> >
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: William Nellis [mailto:nellis_iv@yahoo.com]
>>> > Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 1:22 AM
>>> > To: Dennis Dumont; Scott Vermillion; swm@emanon.com; darth router;
>>> > M_A_Jones@dell.com
>>> > Cc: cisconuts@hotmail.com; joe@affirmedsystems.com;
>>> > pauld@marshallcomm.com; jlogginsccie@san.rr.com;
tom.nohwa@gmail.com;
>>> > ccielab@groupstudy.com; Adato, Leon; Marci Carpenter; Carpenter,
>>> > Michael
>>> > Subject: Re: CCIE Important Interview Quesition asked by Sunrise,
>>> > Swiss
>>> >
>>> > The way you keep less than qualified people from taking your
position
>>> > or the sale, is by demonstrating your value day in and day out.
Not by
>>> > creating an exclusive club. The best thing we could do is, not
form an
>>> > "industry guild" (actually, on that note, there is probably only
about
>>> > 50 of them already... which means none of them hold any merit)...
So
>>> > industry certifications are supposed to give some ability at this.
>>> > Given, they are not perfect, the CCIE is challenging enough to
move
>>> > beyond rote memorization, and it is also unbiased.
>>> > Even if it is not
>>> > perfect, having this unbiased system is better than having a bunch
of
>>> > guys sitting with elk hats making subjective votes on who can join
the
>>> > union. How do you measure that? How do you offer a business case
for
>>> > value based on subjective matters? If the unbiased system isn't
>>> > working, lets improve that instead. I'm of the opinion, that while
it
>>> > aint perfect... it does weed out allot of people.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I honestly dont have the answer to all these questions, one of the
>>> > main problems is IT is a constantly sliding window. It develops at
a
>>> > pace in which whatever standards you set now will need to be
>>> > reevaluated every
>>> > 24-36 months for relevance. Another problem is there is a
constantly
>>> > short demand for talent. There is ample "people", but the
companies
>>> > need talent. I think there are allot of people in Ops and Tier 1/2
>>> > positions that want to move around and develop but are challenged
>>> > because there are lots of other people there, while companies are
>>> > looking for tier3/4 type people to work on their ever increasing
>>> > networks... (for sake of simplicity I put all people in 4 tiers
for
>>> > this
>>> > discussion)
>>> >
>>> > AND, the Tier 3/4 people today that don't stay abreast of the
moving
>>> > targets lose value over time. Tech is rough man, you got to work
just
>>> > to stay afloat. These networks aren't getting any easier, and it
seems
>>> > the more companies rely on them for increasingly mission critical
>>> > reasources, it keeps getting hairier.
>>> >
>>> > So, when interviewing people, your not looking just for someone to
do
>>> > the job today. That isn't as bad, but also looking for people that
can
>>> > understand new technology and advances As they are being written
and
>>> > coming out, and be able to grow with them and design for them. So
your
>>> > looking for someone with promise, someone you can invest in and
get
>>> > ROI out of. Someone with critical thinking, experience to some
degree,
>>> > and probably a Cert to get their foots in the door.
>>> >
>>> > I don't think the "bashing" of these so called Paper CCIE's is the
>>> > same as the bashing we used to do of paper MCSE. it's a whole
other
>>> > level, and given, they may not be the BEST of the BEST in every
>>> > permutation, and you can pick them apart, they have reached a
>>> > milestone in their education that, like it or not, makes them an
>>> > asset.
>>> > Not for every
>>> > opportunity or every organization, but an asset none the less.
>>> > Because, at the least, you can ensure they have some semblance of
>>> > problem solving capabilities, or that they worked extra hard to
get
>>> > it. So, like it or not, the reason CCIE is the most respected
cert, is
>>> > because it is the best the industry has.
>>> >
>>> > CCIE = Aptitude + effort. So, you can say some people don't have
as
>>> > much aptitude, but in that instance, it means they had to exert
more
>>> > effort.
>>> >
>>> > And another reason to stop the "Paper CCIE" stuff already, it's a
>>> > plaque, darn it.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>> > r/s
>>> > William Nellis IV
>>> > nellis_iv@yahoo.com
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ----- Original Message ----
>>> > From: Dennis Dumont <dfdumont@yahoo.com>
>>> > To: Scott Vermillion <scott_ccie_list@it-ag.com>; swm@emanon.com;
>>> > darth router <darklordrouter@gmail.com>; M_A_Jones@dell.com
>>> > Cc: cisconuts@hotmail.com; joe@affirmedsystems.com;
>>> > pauld@marshallcomm.com; jlogginsccie@san.rr.com;
tom.nohwa@gmail.com;
>>> > ccielab@groupstudy.com; Leon Adato <leon.adato@nationalcity.com>;
>>> > Marci Carpenter <marcarpe@cisco.com>; Michael Carpenter
>>> > <michael.carpenter@nationalcity.com>
>>> > Sent: Thursday, November 8, 2007 5:17:20 PM
>>> > Subject: RE: CCIE Important Interview Quesition asked by Sunrise,
>>> > Swiss
>>> >
>>> > Back when I was a hiring mgr, I had a few questions I asked that
had
>>> > multiple right answers. Case in point, "You have just typed, 'deb
ip
>>> > pack det' in your session, but nothing shows up.
>>> > What's wrong and how
>>> > do you fix it?"
>>> > Yeah there's LOTS of answers to this one, but I was looking for
the
>>> > thought process, not the actual answer.
>>> > I don't see how 'lifting' router or fixing it still attached to
the
>>> > rack applies, but I'll say this - I concur wholeheartedly with the
>>> > other comments in this thread around 'paper' CCIE's. I thought
I'd
>>> > never admit such a thing existed, except I've interviewed too many
of
>>> > them.
>>> > They couldn't design there way out of a wet paper bag, and
probably
>>> > couldn't troubleshoot an inverted 60-pin serial cable.
>>> >
>>> > I think this points to an even more pervasive problem in the IT
>>> > industry
>>> > - lack of governance, or more correctly of an admission process to
the
>>> > industry.
>>> > Just because I can cram a Transcender or TestKing test puke,
doesn't
>>> > mean I know anything about the technology. Quite frankly all
>>> > certifications EXCEPT the CCIE Practical exam are fundamentally
flawed
>>> > by being a multiple-choice questionnaire. The correct answer
appears
>>> > in the test question simply for the person to select - but I
digress
>>> >
>>> > I said this before on other forums, but I think WE need to decide
what
>>> > to do with OUR industry. I think we need a guild, or some form of
>>> > regulatory body, like what Lawyers, Doctors and even CPA's go
through
>>> > to ENTER their respective professions. We need people like Scott
>>> > Morris, Linus Torvalds, et. al. to be on the Board and to
delineate
>>> > how the rest of (that haven't already proven our worth through
years
>>> > of
>>> > contributions) get into the Guild. I think a system that follows
the
>>> > Apprentice, Journeyman, Master kind of hierarchy would work well
and
>>> > has significant recent and historical validity.
>>> >
>>> > What do YOU think? How do we either prevent less-than-qualified
>>> > people from taking our positions (or our sale), and/or how do we
>>> > validate that we as a person know what we are talking about and
can be
>>> > trusted?
>>> >
>>> > Just my $0.02
>>> > Dennis Dumont
>>> >
>>> > __________________________________________________
>>> > Do You Yahoo!?
>>> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>>> > http://mail.yahoo.com <http://mail.yahoo.com/>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Dec 01 2007 - 06:37:29 ART