FWIW I have seen quite a few Cisco jobs recently on jobserve looking for people with MPLS skills specifically.
-----Original Message----- From: nrf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 02 April 2003 02:52 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A career in MPLS..... [7:66609] ""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*. ============================================= This email has been content filtered and subject to spam filtering. If you consider this email is unsolicited please forward the email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and request that the sender's domain be blocked from sending any further emails. ============================================= ===================================== Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=66683&t=66609 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
