From: Scott Morris (smorris@internetworkexpert.com)
Date: Sun Dec 28 2008 - 17:28:14 ARST
I understand the objectives there as well as the things that are typically
seen for better or for worse... What I was more interested in the formation
of opinion on was:
"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."
And trying to figure out just how many folks around this forum or
particularly what instructor(s) you may have had enough experience with to
form such an opinion.
Preparing for a CCIE is not about designing a network. Teaching CCIE
candidates is not about designing a network. Have you hired any folks from
here by which you'd be able to gauge that?
Perhaps I'm just out in left field here, as nobody in particular was singled
out, but it just seems to be a brash/bold statement to make regardless of
who the individuals are.
Working with Fortune 100/500/DC places, at least you'll have the ability to
work at the level where things SHOULD be as well-thought as the CVD's. The
rest of the world has many other factors coming into part of that decision
making, and the CCDE appears to be taking that into account as well.
Scott
_____
From: Darby Weaver [mailto:ccie.weaver@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 12:39 AM
To: smorris@internetworkexpert.com
Cc: Marko Milivojevic; huan@huanlan.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: CCDE - Results are in
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