I'm trying to figure out if this truly interesting discussion is disguised as a flame .......or is it the other way around! Either way, I picked up some good insight about MPLS. Let the cyber flames continue! dj
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=66654&t=66609 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
