Re: OT - VSS and CCIE 4.0

On 3/4/2011 5:50 PM, Narbik Kocharians wrote:
> In the old days some of the CCIEs were more respected, than, some of
> the CCIEs nowadays. What do you think the reason is?
>
> I think the reason is Knowledge of whats real. When a CCIE gets
> hired and he/she does NOT have a clue, that firm will think twice
> about hiring CCIEs.
>
> The same happened to the other certifications. CCIE is NOT an entry
> point in any ones language. *In the old days we had 5500s and that box
> was expensive, but relevant*.
>
If a firm hires a CCIE with no real world experience. They get what
they earned.
>
>
> When you tell me that you are a CCIE, you are telling me that you know
> your Routing and Switching. A person that has never touched a 6500
> (The platform that I recommended), can not figure things out on the
> fly, it will take that person a while to know how to deal with it,
> this is very different to the different management applications that
> you are stating.
I read the link. It's still just a implementation guide for one platform.
> The QoS aspect of these boxes can be a nightmare for a first time user.
As can any number items on any number of platforms.
>
> I agree with you that there will always be new technologies or
> platforms, but they should try to make this cert as relevant as possible.
>
Relevant to who? Yes, there are a ton of 6500's. And no, most of them
don't have advanced QOS features enabled. Hell, I've seen many without
VLANs configured.
>
> I dont know about you, but all the instructors that I know, get VERY
> excited when the class that they are teaching (CCIE ONLY) contains
> relevant stuff. When I learn something and figure out a new behavior,
> it makes me excited. Obviously we are VERY different.
>
Again, the point of the certification isn't to give you excitement.
It's great if you have fun, but that isn't the point of the whole
matter. I find new toys as fun as anyone.
> Once again, if you go back and read my post, you will see that I
> clearly stated that, this is NOT an argument its a discussion. But
> you and the other guy made it very personal and started attacking and
> arguing just because I recommended a change, its NOT that Cisco is
> going to implement the recommended changes tomorrow, or they are even
> considering what I recommended. This is a FREE world, and we are all
> entitled to our own opinion, you can NOT get personal and attack the
> person just because he/she state his/her ideas. OR I like to offer
> FREE classes to some that can NOT afford it. This is my business and I
> will do what ever that makes me feel good.
By definition, it became an argument when we had a difference of
opinion. I have not made it personal other than to say I disagree with
you and that I feel you want things changed for your own benefit. (Own
benefit being: entertainment, money, adoration, etc...) As a free
world, I am entitled to point out where I believe you are wrong. You
wouldn't be trying to imply that free speech is a unidirectional
protocol, right?
> When Cisco had 2 switches in the lab, the level of the switching part
> of that exam was NOT up to par, but when they added another 2
> switches, the level of knowledge and lab was raised to a higher level.
> Could you imagine if they add the 6500, how well the CCIE candidates
> will know the features, QoS and etc of that box? When you say CCIE
> has nothing to do with the equipment, then, lets change the switches
> with 2900 XLs, or 1900s. Why do you think Cisco changed the 3550s to
> 3560s? I think they did that because of the new features that are
> available on 3560s such as Srr queueing, IPv6 and etc..If you knew
> 3550s back and forth, you will have problems implementing QoS, IPv6
> and bunch of other things that are available on 3560 that are missing
> on a 3550 switches. Because you would not have a clue about them.
I never said that the lab should never change. I said that the value of
adding the 6500 is not worth the barrier of entry. Now, if Cisco made
it easier to get emulators or hardware, etc... then that might be a
different discussion. As it is now, those are not legal options. So,
unless that changes, I will respectfully disagree.

--
This message was scanned by ESVA and is believed to be clean.
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net