Re: CCIE Service Providerv3 - General Question

I never said they need to start back at the CCNA level. Careful.
(If you carefully search the thread, I never came close to saying that)
I'm going to assume your not TRYING to be a smart ass either. ;-)

I agreed with Brian McGhan when he said that MOST CCIE's would not need it.

Learning something right the first time is how it should it should be done. My point is to NOT assume we are NOT just trying to get people to pass an exam to become a CCIE. ( I think we agreed on this)

I have run into my fair share of CCIE-SP's that LEARNED IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME and STILL do not know how to APPLY it correctly.

CCNA level does not = INFERIOR. It can actually mean trying to learn right the first time.

Sometimes the Advanced Approach skips past some basic things that WE (You and I) have experienced, but these newer CCIE's have not. That's why they come to us. RIGHT?

Paul

Paul Negron
CCIE# 14856
negron.paul_at_gmail.com

On Oct 29, 2012, at 5:03 PM, Brian Dennis <bdennis_at_ine.com> wrote:

> Paul,
> Okay I see what you're saying now. Someone who goes through a vendor's
> R&S CCIE training material that focuses on them becoming an "IOS command
> jockey" so they can pass the CCIE lab without truly learning the
> technologies NEEDS to start back at CCNA level for their next CCIE track.
> As you stated INE's philosophy is different in that someone won't need to
> start all over again and relearn say basic OSPF or basic BGP if they went
> through our R&S CCIE training. This is exactly why we have so much
> coverage of the technologies themselves in our products.
>
> Honestly I think it's hard for you to argue that learning something right
> the first time isn't the best option but I'm glad we finally cleared it up.
>
> --
> Brian Dennis, CCIEx5 #2210 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/SP/Voice)
> bdennis_at_ine.com
>
> INE, Inc.
> http://www.INE.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10/29/12 6:04 PM, "Paul Negron" <negron.paul_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think what Kenneth is saying is what I was trying to allude to in my
>> earlier
>> point. If you walk into a Service Provider Environment saying you are a
>> CCIE-SP and you think its about weather you know OSPF or ISIS from R&S,
>> your
>> going to get laughed at and make every CCIE-SP look like a joke. It is
>> simply
>> a different perspective in that environment.
>>
>> The differences for IOS-XR in the real world are HUGE compared to the
>> CCIE-SP
>> routing and switching portion. The posted documentation has a lot of
>> things
>> that are not used practically.
>>
>> But if your perspective is simply looking at the CCIE test scenarios, then
>> listen to what Brian says.
>>
>> In my CCIE bootcamp, I really try to help you out for the exam and the 20
>> years I have spent in the Service Provider space. I don't want you being
>> laughed at. ;-)
>> I enjoy explaining the reasoning behind the concepts. In other words?..
>> the
>> BASICS!!! I do not ASSUME you already know. In fact, I had a couple of R&S
>> candadites in the last bootcamp that actually enjoyed that perspective
>> and I
>> would say they were quite sharp.(Sharper then most I have met)
>>
>>
>> That said, I still agree with Narbik. The INE perspective still offers a
>> different view, which is useful when attempting a CCIE exam.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> Paul Negron
>> CCIE# 14856
>> negron.paul_at_gmail.com
>> 303-725-8162
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 29, 2012, at 3:14 PM, Brian McGahan <bmcgahan_at_ine.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Right, there are obviously differences between the two OSes, both in
>>>>> hardware and software, but for any true CCIE this should not be an
>>>>> issue.
>>>>> The point of the CCIE is to obtain the level of expert in network
>>>>> engineering. As an expert you should have a deep theoretical
>>>>> knowledge
>>>>> of why and how different networking technologies work. OSPF is OSPF,
>>>>> BGP is BGP, whether it's on IOS, IOS XR, NX-OS, JunOS, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, that's the kind of viewpoint that causes outages. When you start
>> thinking like this, you tend to make some very, very bad assumptions. Of
>> course, you might live you in a world >where vendors never change options
>> or
>> defaults between platforms or even OS revisions on the same platform,
>> never
>> mind the consideration of interoperability.
>>>
>>> Right, there are obviously different caveats to the different
>> implementations, but at the core they are all functionally the same. If
>> you
>> know OSPF, and you know OSPF on IOS, you're not reinventing the wheel
>> trying
>> to learn OSPF on IOS XR.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What I'm saying is that if you're a CCIE in R&S - an *expert* in
>>>>> Routing & Switching technologies - and you need to start back at CCNA
>>>>> level for the Service Provider track, then you have failed. You've
>>>>> failed yourself as you've missed the entire point of CCIE to begin
>>>>> with.
>>>>
>>>> There's something about this I find to be fairly offensive, and quite
>>>> a bit
>> elitist. Do you honestly believe that achieving a CCIE means you never
>> have to
>> go back to basics? You never have to review? That you don't have that
>> much to
>> learn?
>>>>
>>>> When you're dealing with an unfamiliar platform and a new OS, I think
>>>> it's
>> prudent to probably start with the basics. I'd expect a CCIE to be able to
>> breeze through it, since it should simply be a matter of reconciling the
>> differences with what you already know, but to say that you've failed
>> yourself
>> by making an attempt to cover all the bases? I think that's a bit too
>> cavalier.
>>>
>>> What I'm saying is that if you pass the CCIE R&S and you're not an
>>> expert in
>> OSPF then something went wrong. It's not meant to be offensive, but the
>> whole
>> idea of CCIE to begin with is elitist. It doesn't mean you know
>> everything,
>> but it *should* mean that at the end of obtaining CCIE you're an expert
>> in a
>> specific subset of technologies per the blueprint. I would think that for
>> most CCIEs the path to SP shouldn't then be back to CCNA. If you go take
>> a
>> class in CCNA SP you're going to be following topics like this:
>>>
>>> - Describe the OSI and TCP/IP models and their associated protocols to
>> explain how data flows in a network
>>> - Describe the structure of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses
>>> - Describe bridging concepts and Layer 2 Ethernet frames
>>> - Describe classful versus classless routing
>>> - Describe ICMPv4 and ICMPv6
>>> - Describe Frame Relay
>>>
>>> In my opinion this is not the right learning path to go from CCIE R&S to
>> CCIE SP, and would be a huge waste of time for most people. They would be
>> better off spending their time reading through the documentation of XR to
>> find
>> the platform and feature differences, and then spend time reading the
>> theory
>> of topics they aren't already an expert in.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593 (R&S/SP/Security)
>>> bmcgahan_at_INE.com
>>>
>>> Internetwork Expert, Inc.
>>> http://www.INE.com
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>> Kenneth Ratliff
>>> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 3:19 PM
>>> To: ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
>>> Subject: Re: CCIE Service Providerv3 - General Question
>>>
>>> On 10/26/12 7:29 PM, "Brian McGahan" <bmcgahan_at_ine.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Right, there are obviously differences between the two OSes, both in
>>>> hardware and software, but for any true CCIE this should not be an
>>>> issue.
>>>> The point of the CCIE is to obtain the level of expert in network
>>>> engineering. As an expert you should have a deep theoretical knowledge
>>>> of why and how different networking technologies work. OSPF is OSPF,
>>>> BGP is BGP, whether it's on IOS, IOS XR, NX-OS, JunOS, etc.
>>>
>>> Yeah, that's the kind of viewpoint that causes outages. When you start
>> thinking like this, you tend to make some very, very bad assumptions. Of
>> course, you might live you in a world where vendors never change options
>> or
>> defaults between platforms or even OS revisions on the same platform,
>> never
>> mind the consideration of interoperability.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What I'm saying is that if you're a CCIE in R&S - an *expert* in
>>>> Routing & Switching technologies - and you need to start back at CCNA
>>>> level for the Service Provider track, then you have failed. You've
>>>> failed yourself as you've missed the entire point of CCIE to begin
>>>> with.
>>>
>>> There's something about this I find to be fairly offensive, and quite a
>>> bit
>> elitist. Do you honestly believe that achieving a CCIE means you never
>> have to
>> go back to basics? You never have to review? That you don't have that
>> much to
>> learn?
>>>
>>> When you're dealing with an unfamiliar platform and a new OS, I think
>>> it's
>> prudent to probably start with the basics. I'd expect a CCIE to be able to
>> breeze through it, since it should simply be a matter of reconciling the
>> differences with what you already know, but to say that you've failed
>> yourself
>> by making an attempt to cover all the bases? I think that's a bit too
>> cavalier.
>>>
>>>
>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>
>>
>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Mon Oct 29 2012 - 17:52:15 ART