From: Darby Weaver (ccie.weaver@gmail.com)
Date: Sun Dec 28 2008 - 03:49:23 ARST
By the way, I've been working on a lot of VPNs lately and QoS too. I'm
really impressed with the manner in which Richard Deal has taken to deliver
a consisteny line of reasoning for justifying his solutions, given the pros
and cons, alternatives, and desired outcomes versus possible outcomes.
He even goes so far as to present the facts in many cases to defend most of
not all positions for the design choices he has chosen to prefer. And gives
enough quality information that the consumer of his material can follow that
line of reasoning, evaluate it, and then subjectively utilize whichever
solution is required to meet a given objective or outcome.
So when thinking of the CCDE, if I had to put a name on a person who comes
to mind, I'd think that someone like Deal using this methodology is probably
what Cisco has in mind for the template of a CCDE.
However, that brings to focus a major point. The CCDE is
"all-encompassing", that is, one cert fits all. Suppose a guy like Mr. Deal
is great as security products. Now we can grasp (perhaps liberally) that he
can extrapolate his depth of knowledge with Security Products to mostly any
given emergent technology, but that would ultimately be an assumption and
not always a fact.
Perhaps there will one day be specialized CCDE flavors and maybe not far off
in the future.
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 12:38 AM, Darby Weaver <ccie.weaver@gmail.com>wrote:
> It's hard to say. I've seen a few networks by now. A lot of Fortune 500
> to 100 Networks and some lower numbers. I've seen a lot of larger networks
> setup by Cisco Gold Partners of some stature. I've had the experience of
> some of visiting and working in some of the decent sized and more prominent
> data centers / colocation facilities in at least the East Coast.
>
> I rarely see the quality and consistency presented in the Cisco Validated
> Designs. Most of all I do not see the line of reasoning consistently
> applied across any given enterprise. Even when done by some of Cisco's
> largest and by degree more resourceful Gold Partners - to be fair they have
> improved and are getting better.
>
> This is partially from the fact that we are a relatively young industry.
> It's also partially due to the fact that many companies have been focused on
> the cost of the solution to get implemented versus the actual cost of
> ongoing maintenance for a given network.
>
> This is changing and changing more rapidly now it seems. The wheat is
> being separated from the chafe sort of speak. Processes and documentation
> are improving and change control are now asking for validated procedures.
> IT is being given resources slowly by surely to ensure that a given solution
> is tested and validated to some degree prior to entrance into a given
> production network.
>
> Being fairly well connected, I get a lot of insight these days from people
> working from a wide range of industries on a fairly global basis and
> discussions are being had.
>
> Actually, I applaud this program and to be fair, I think it never should
> have gotten ditched the first time. However, hindsight being 20/20 and
> seeing the work I've seen from the top tier in my state, the region, and the
> country; it's fair to say that the industry was not quite where it wanted to
> be 3 years ago, 5 years ago, or 10+ years ago.
>
> Cisco through its education, certification, partner porgrams, conferences,
> and seminars have done quite a bit to stem the tide.
>
> However, it's also fair to say that some degree of ignorance served the sum
> of the vendors well. I mean one can hardly justify 6500's for a single
> campus networks with 100-300 users on the basis of requiring 100 phones.
> Instead corporate office do something similar in terms of expense.
>
> I'd say a lot of networks are oversold in most cases.
>
> However, with that said I've worked with engineers who are the exact
> opposite, frugal to a fault, and every command has its place or it is not
> called into service. I've been in the meeting and a part of the process to
> get each feature approved and the budgets to pay for it. So when I read the
> stated objectives for the CCDE, I think they are easily 95% or better right
> on the money.
>
> Those objectives are what we as a profession should be living up to and the
> quality we as a community seek to uphold.
>
> We should know why we are recommending a solution. We should have
> researched, tested, compared, and validated that solution (and/or) - have
> sound business partners that have done the same.
>
> We need to have the data ready to present for both peer review and for the
> approving authority. Not sometimes, all the time. If a vendor is ready to
> recommend a solution, then they shoudl have the validated designs ready at
> the same presentation.
>
> Further, these designs have to have a measure of accuracy. That is a
> monitoring solution to verify that these solutions are doing what they were
> purchased to do. i.e. If I ask for $1-2 million dollars for a given project
> or series of projects then I need to ensure that I'm getting my ROI from
> these solutions. Not that they are not possible to validate. Not that they
> may or may not even get implemented or if they did it was barely racked and
> stacked by Cisco Partner.
>
> We want more. We demand more. We need to be able to prove that we are
> getting what we are paying for and we need this today not tomorrow.
>
> Programs like the CCDE and what it is promising to be or become are
> stepping stones to achieving these levels of accountability. It is a tool
> needed to ensure we are acting responsibly as a community.
>
> Look at how far the effect of the CCIE program has gone over the past ~12+
> years or so. What it took to get Gold Partners from delivering flat vlan'd
> solutions as late as 2001/2002 or so and into 2008 in some cases. I didn't
> stutter. Again we can look towards proper project planning and oversight
> as well as the actual implementations of the day. Conversely speaking I've
> worked with high-level (now Director/VP level) professionals who claim they
> were implementing some very solid design solutions as early as 1994 and 1996
> or so. I thought it a little out of context at the time, and based on the
> designs and implementations I have from the era they would have been the
> exceptions and far from the rule in all but the most expensive and
> resourceful shops.
>
> So - don't think I wanted to aim at anyone in particular Scott. However,
> as time passes and more people pass the exam, they tend to pass
> exponentially. The more one is connected the easier it is to grow in one's
> profession. I'm just saying requirements from mostly any Cisco or other
> Vendor's beta exams are always somehow more vague when they are first
> introduced to the testing public.
>
> Times are changing.
>
> Firefighters used to be hero's.
>
> ITILwill tell you to fire your best Firefighters. Hire Fire Prevention
> Specialists.
>
> CCDE's are the Fire Prevention Specialists or so it will appear to the many
> certified people coming from programs for Project Management.
>
> Or so I would humbly bargain to think.
>
> It's trendy and it has the force of standardization. The industry needs
> this.
>
> And it serves Cisco well to have a hardened force of persistent
> professionals who are highly motivated, battle-scarred, and willing to study
> just a bit harder to earn a high-level credential that might be synonymous
> with "Excellence" and "World-Class Leading Practices".
>
> I think that's my point.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Scott Morris <
> smorris@internetworkexpert.com> wrote:
>
>> That's a very interesting commentary there Darby...
>>
>> As I recall about the 1-day CCIE lab, it was offered to people who already
>> had their CCIE. So it wasn't scoring in the same aspect. It was more for
>> garnering opinions than looking to actually certify anyone!
>>
>> As you noted, design best practices change time and time again, which is
>> why
>> this exam is more about thought process than any particular best practice
>> set.
>>
>> I would be interested in your opinion who WOULD meet those requirements
>> and/or where the opinion(s) came from there!
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>> Darby Weaver
>> Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2008 7:30 PM
>> To: Marko Milivojevic
>> Cc: huan@huanlan.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>> Subject: Re: CCDE - Results are in
>>
>> Anyone remember how many illustrious luminaries passed the first demo
>> rounds
>> of the present 1-Day CCIE Lab the first time around when offered by Cisco?
>>
>> Design Best Practices are like seasons in the wind sometimes. What was
>> great a few years ago is discarded for newer technologies. Things change.
>>
>> How deep does the CCDE go?
>>
>>
>> Hmmm...
>>
>> Sounds like my day to day job task list all the way down to the change
>> control requirements, impact, backout plan, an restoration planning (it
>> didn't explicitly mention testing plans).
>>
>> Justification? Wow! That can mean a lot of things to a lot of people.
>>
>> Based on what I read, I do not doubt that every CCIE ought to be able to
>> handle the technical specifications of this exam.
>>
>> However, based on what I read I think there are a lot of choices for any
>> given design that can influecenced by circumstances, budget, operational
>> requirements, etc.
>>
>> Overall, I'd say I've not necessarily seen all of the skills to fulfill
>> these requirements met by every CCIE on this forum, despite holding 1 or
>> more CCIEs and despite being an active CCIE instructor.
>>
>> So it might be very interesting to see who makes the cut.
>>
>> Configuring a device is one thing, finesse is quite another. In both
>> cases
>> they may or may not work properly as "designed".
>>
>> I recall the CCDA and CCDP being two very intricate exams, relatively
>> speaking.
>>
>> I imagine this one is going to be quite interesting too.
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jan 01 2009 - 12:53:10 ARST