- A virtual community of network engineers
 Home  BookStore  StudyNotes  Links  Archives  StudyRooms  HelpWanted  Discounts  Login
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] posted 06/21/2003
[Chronological Index] [Thread Index] [Top] [Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Carroll Kong wrote:
> > > be more prone to some form of bootcamp brain dumpage.  But
> this
> > > is
> > > not really conclusive. It might just be that, the CCIE is
> > > becoming
> > > "more popular" and people have recently tapped into this
> > > market.  The
> > > drop in Cisco gear pricing on the used market probably had a
> > > LOT to
> > > do with bringing down this barrier to entry.
> > 
> > Well, the market for bootcamps is pretty darn good proof that
> it's
> > conclusive.  Think of it logically - why would people be
> willing to
> > consistently cough up thousands of dollars for bootcamps if
> they don't
> > work?  Either all these people are all stupidly throwing
> their money away,
> > or you have to concede that bootcamps are making the test
> easier.  PT
> > Barnum  said that while you can fool all the people some of
> the time and
> > some people all the time, you can't fool all the people all
> the time.  If
> > bootcamps really had no value, it is likely that this would
> be common
> > knowledge by now.
> Well, it is not so much if it was "no value" or not.  It is
> more so
> is it worth the time and effort for people to develop bootcamps
> as a
> market.  Back in the 2 day lab, sure, but not as big, since
> there
> were so few candidates.  Now that we got the 1 day lab and
> "more
> candidates" you can "sell more".  I am saying it is possible
> that the
> rise of the bootcamps came from the clearly larger candidate
> pool
> since more candidates were allowed to take it.

But that's really neither here nor there.  At the end of the day, more
bootcamps = easier test.  Why there are more bootcamps around today is
unimportant for purposes of this discussion.  It doesn't matter why - so why
ask why.  All that matters is are there more bootcamps.

Now again, I would reiterate that I don't have a problem with bootcamps per
se. I see them as basically inevitable.  But on the other hand, it does mean
that Cisco must make the exam even more difficult to compensate for the
effects of the bootcamps.

> I think learning new technology is kind of a mixed bag though. 
> While
> yes, I do not see myself putting up BGP confederations and what
> not,
> you do get the ancient crowd who doesn't know what a VLAN is or
> isn't
> too interested in it since they have been deploying networks
> for 5
> years, so they go with a monolithic flat network with daisy
> chained
> switches.  Nevermind the subtle other issues that can come up
> with
> it, including ridiculously large broadcast domains which allow
> one
> rogue box to annihilate the entire network.....
> So, where do you draw the line?  In any event, I do not see the
> new
> technology issue to be a big deal.  People have to get up to
> speed
> with the latest knobs of the new tech in any event, which goes
> back
> to the learning capacity.  And like I said before, quite a few
> low
> numbered CCIEs have not touched a router for configuration or 
> troubleshooting in years.

Personally I think the best way to solve this problem is to force people to
recertify by taking the current lab exam again.  No more of this BS where
guys can just take a written exam to recertify.  You want to continue
calling yourself a CCIE?  Then you should have no problem in passing the lab
again.  Otherwise, we'll convert your status to 'retired CCIE' or CCIE
emeritus or something like.

> > key operating word there is 'rare'.  For various reasons, I
> believe anything
> > that could be done by IP multicasting could probably be done
> far easier
> > either through a broadcast network (for example, right now
> through my
> > digital cableTV service at home I get hundreds of TV channels
> - and quite
> > frankly most of them suck -  and with compression algorithms
> improving all
> > the time, I may be getting thousands of channels in the near
> future) or
> > through an application-level proxy/cache/CDN arrangement.  
> But the point is
> > that even the most fervent IP multicasting supporter has to
> concede that the
> > technology hasn't exactly taken the world by storm.
> Yeah, the only one I can think of is possibly the financial
> realm and
> any attempt to distribute lots of channels (had an old VDSL
> project
> for a startup that required this).
> > Therefore the argument that the newer CCIE test supposedly
> has more relevant
> > technologies really doesn't hold water.  In the case of BGP,
> most
> > enterprises don't need it, in the case of route-reflection
> most enterprises
> > don't know it and care about it, and in the case of IP
> multicasting, most
> > enterprises don't know it, don't need it and don't care about
> it.  Or, let
> > me put it to you another way.  The newest version of the CCIE
> no longer has
> > IPX or tokenring.  Yet I think I'm on safe ground when I say
> there are far
> > more enterprises out there running tokenring and IPX than are
> running IP
> > multicasting or BGP route reflection.  Therefore, of the
> older or newer
> > CCIE, which one  is REALLY more relevant to present-day
> enterprise networks?
> Well, still might be a mixed bag there too.  Like software,
> once
> something has been released it is pretty much impossible to
> quell it.
>  You are not going to see a lot of new token ring or IPX
> deployments
> nowadays.  I do not see it as a "oh the new CCIE has new stuff
> so
> it's better than the old CCIE".  I see it as a the new CCIE
> tests
> modern technologies now, just like it always should keep up
> with the
> technology ball.  Akin to what professors say in college, "it
> is the
> responsibility of the student to learn the programming language
> to do
> the assignment"  Or, it is the responsibilty of the CCIE to
> learn any
> older technology he may have "skipped" in his training if he
> wants to
> support or work on those.
> Supporting older stuff is good because once it's out there, it
> isn't
> going away 100% anytime soon, but testing for newer stuff is
> good
> too.  What is more useful in the end?  Depends on the market
> you are
> aiming for.  Ultimately, the individual has to step up to learn
> both
> as needed and quickly.  I think the test's move to concentrate
> on new
> technologies was a mixed bag, and not a total negative.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it is a total negative.  But I
dispute the fervent contention of some that it's a total positive.

Message Posted at:
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to abuse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx