I wonder if Cisco's MPLS class is just dated. It takes a long time to develop and roll out a new class, especially if there's also a Cisco Press book, exam, instructor materials, course binder, instructor training, beta testing, etc.
In the early days of MPLS, was there more emphasis on LDP than on RSVP-TE? Were MPLS L3 VPNs around before L2 VPNs? Maybe it's just a matter of "course development latency." Thanks for your insights. Priscilla nrf wrote: > > ""Henry D."" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I don't mean to start any type of argument here, especially > with someone > > who obviously has more experience than I do. Yes, you've been > > contributing to this study group many times. But also many > times > > your contributions are rather rethorical than practical and > at the same > > time you seem to draw attention to what your opinion is > rather than to > > give an educated and objective view backed by any type of > real life > > examples. > > First of all, given the subject matter (MPLS), it is most > difficult to be > giving out real-life examples. The fact is, MPLS is at this > time not widely > implemented, so therefore few examples abound. > > Second of all, it is essentially impossible for anybody to make > a posting > that is not necessarily colored with an opinion, particularly > when they are > discussing a subjective question. Questions like whether they > should study > MPLS or what they should do with their future are necessarily > going to draw > a wide range of opinions. If everybody is supposed to > dogmatically answer > 'yes' or 'no', then what's the point of even asking the > question in the > first place? The point is that subjective questions must > necessarily elicit > subjective answers. People are not robots. Everybody has to > call it like > they see it. You ask a subjective question, and people should > be able to > chime in with whatever they think. It's all about freedom of > speech. > > Third of all, Cisconuts and I have taken the discussion > offline, and while I > don't want to speak for him, I would venture to say that he is > quite happy > with my responses. So if he's cool, then what exactly is your > beef? > > Fourth of all, I resent the implication that my views are not > educated. Be > careful when you go around saying stuff like that. I seem to > recall a story > a few years ago how one particular guy harangued another guy > about BGP, > essentially saying that he knew nothing about how BGP really > worked - only > to find out later that the second guy was none other than a > certain Tony Li, > the father of BGP. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying > that I'm Li or > anywhere close to him. What I'm saying is that you should > watch your fire. > > >So yes, I'm saying that some times you don't quite stick > > to the subject at hand. I don't see how your view on Cisco's > curriculum > > in re to MPLS can be taken seriously without you putting > actual examples > > of how you came to that conclusion. > > Ok, fine, then let's review the CCIP curricula vis-a-vis MPLS, > and in > particular, let's review what exactly they teach. I know for a > fact that > they teach primarily LDP and gloss over RSVP-TE. Do you think > this is wise? > There is no evidence in the industry of a consensus that LDP > will > automatically win out over RSVP-TE. If you have such evidence, > I would like > to see it. I doubt that LDP will ever win out simply because > you can't do > TE with LDP unless you go with CR-LDP which Cisco does not have > any plans to > support at this time. TE is one of the more important features > available > within MPLS. The point I'm making is that neglecting RSVP-TE > within an MPLS > exam seems rather dubious. > > Second, the last 2-3 modules of that class deal specifically > with l3vpn's, > with nary a mention of any l2vpn technology whatsoever. Again, > why such an > emphasis on L3 but no discussion of L2? Much of the most > exciting work in > MPLSCON is about l2vpn's. Don't get me wrong, L3 is good to > know, but a > good MPLS class would also get into a discussion of l2. > > The point I'm making is this. If all you do is follow the > official Cisco > MPLS class, you will get a warped view of how real-world MPLS > is. LDP is > not the ultimate no-brainer signalling path for constructing > LSP's and MPLS > can do far more than just L3VPN's. I'm not telling you not to > follow > Cisco's curricula. What I'm saying is that you should > supplement it with > other readings and experience. > > >Even if the knowledge required for > > achieving > > Cisco's recognition in re to MPLS was not as advanced as one > would hope, > > shouldn't we look at positives of the whole process ? > > Again, it's not a matter of being advanced as it has to do with > emphasis. I > think that the coursework emphasizes some of the > not-so-important things and > does not discuss some of the more important things. > > Also, I don't think it's my job to 'play nice'. If things are > not good, > then I think people should say that they're not good. Why > engage in > diplomatic euphemisms? Does it really do anybody any good to > dress things > up so that they look better than they really are? I'm not > running a > marketing campaign. > > > There are still things > > to be learnt, and emphasising them rather than the weaknesses > would be a > > better idea. You won't become an expert just by passing the > test or taking > a > > trainig > > class, but at the same token, you can still learn a lot while > achieving > > those CCXX > > goals. > > > > Anyway, I'm sure there will be a good response coming, so let > me be done > > with this subject. I had an early start today and I'm tired > now. > > > > Good night ! > > > > > > ""nrf"" wrote in message > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ""Henry D."" wrote in message > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Let me say up front, I don't have much experience in > MPLS, I have > > > > only played with it in the lab and not all that > extensively either. > > > > But CN is simply trying to get an idea of what to expect > to go that > > road. > > > > > > I believe that was precisely what I answered. > > > > > > > Is "nrf" saying not to advance in this field by studying > Cisco's way > of > > > > emphasising MPLS ? > > > > > > What I said is that if you want to advance in that field, > you will need > > > substantially more than what Cisco wants you to know about > it. Read my > > post > > > again. > > > > > > >You know, we all have our doubts, he's brave enough > > > > to come to this group and ask questions. As far as > L3VPN's, why not > > > > concentrate > > > > on that at least to start with. > > > > > > I never said not to learn L3VPN's. Read my post again. > What I said is > > that > > > study of L3VPN's shouldn't be emphasized to the degree that > Cisco seems > to > > > emphasize it. > > > > > > > It's still one reason to do the MPLS thing. > > > > By just > > > > doing that he'll need to touch on many aspects of MPLS > anyway. He will > > > still > > > > use either LDP or RSVP, he still will use the LSP > establishment, he > > might > > > as > > > > well > > > > learn the TE options available for establishment of those > LSP's. He'll > > > need > > > > to learn > > > > how to use the LSP's for pushing traffic over them. He'll > learn what > and > > > how > > > > the > > > > labels get pushed/popped. Then why not study it that way. > He's not > > > advancing > > > > his > > > > MPLS skills, he might not have any yet. He's simply > trying to see if > he > > > will > > > > be able to utilize any of the skills he will have to > learn to make it > > > worth > > > > it his while. > > > > > > No doubt all learning is good. Again, read my post again. > I never said > > > that he shouldn't learn it. What I said is that he > shouldn't > necessarily > > > learn it "the Cisco way". > > > > > > > > > > > Well, maybe someone else with more experience in MPLS > arena and > someone > > > more > > > > objective can give a better insight as to whether there > is a demand > for > > > > these skills. > > > > > > Are you implying that I'm not objective - that I have some > kind of > agenda? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ""nrf"" wrote in message > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > ""Cisco Nuts"" wrote in message > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Hello group, How does one feel about a career in > MPLS...I mean > doing > > > > MPLS > > > > > > as part of your core job day in and out.....Is it > worth it? Since > > our > > > > > > network does not use MPLS (maybe never will) inspite > of being one > of > > > the > > > > > > Big Four Tier 1 SP's.... > > > > > > > > > > Let me guess. Do you work for Sprint? > > > > > > > > > > >are there other SP's that use MPLS in their > > > > > > backbone?? > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, there are some. > > > > > > > > > > >I have just given myself a month or so break from my > CCIE Lab > > > > > > Prep.(yeah!yeah! most would consider me stupid on > this) to study > > MPLS > > > > > > for the CCIP and am thinking if I should pursue this > subject just > > > like > > > > I > > > > > > did for BGP.....know it inside out cold.....and maybe > consider a > new > > > > > > career/job in MPLS (obviously along with BGP, MBGP, > MCast etc...) > > Does > > > > > > anyone know of how MPLS is viewed out there? I > mean, in terms of > > > > > > implementation, popularity and last but not the least > , $$$ ??? > > > > ;->Which > > > > > > of the Big SP's or Enterprise networks have > implemented MPLS? Has > it > > > > been > > > > > > worth the advantages that MPLS proposes??Thank > you.Sincerely,CN > > > > > > > > > > The way I see it is this. MPLS is potentially powerful > technology > for > > > it > > > > > can be used as a lingua-franca among a carrier's > network and > transport > > > > layer > > > > > and also as a way to impose circuit-switching > discipline upon IP and > > > > > therefore offer circuit-switching services with a pure > IP network. > > > > > > > > > > But MPLS is by no means a slam-dunk. Certain > carriers, most > notably > > > > > Sprint, have elected not to go down the MPLS path > because they > believe > > > the > > > > > technology is immature (and they are correct) and also > because they > > > > believe > > > > > that they can garner the benefits of MPLS by other > means (also > > correct). > > > > > The point is that while MPLS offers great potential, it > also > presents > > > > > problems, so implementing it is not a no-brainer. > > > > > > > > > > And furthermore, I don't particularly like the way that > Cisco is > > pushing > > > > > MPLS, particularly in its cert program. In my opinion, > I think > > Cisco's > > > > cert > > > > > programs emphasize the least useful parts of MPLS while > neglecting > the > > > > more > > > > > useful parts. For example, I don't understand why > Cisco pushes LDP > > the > > > > way > > > > > it does, for LDP merely builds LSP's that correspond to > the route > > table, > > > > but > > > > > what's so useful about having LDP's that look like the > route table? > > It > > > is > > > > > far more useful to build LSP's that differ from the > route table, but > > the > > > > > methods of doing that are not really covered very much > (if at all) > in > > > the > > > > > Cisco curricula. Also, I don't understand why Cisco > places such an > > > > emphasis > > > > > on L3VPN's, as if L3VPNs were the only important > service that MPLS > > > > enables. > > > > > L3VPN's are only one of the new services that you can > enable, and in > > my > > > > > opinion, one of the less important ones. Far more > important are the > > > L2VPN > > > > > capabilities and the ability to unify IP, ATM, and > optical into a > > single > > > > > management plane. The point I'm making is that if > you merely > study > > > MPLS > > > > > according to the Cisco curricula, you really haven't > learned much > > about > > > it > > > > > that's actually useful. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months > FREE*. > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=66652&t=66609 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
