At 08:26 PM 6/20/2003 +0000, MADMAN wrote: >Mark E. Hayes wrote: > > NOT being a wise-a$$ here... When is it appropriate to run BGP? I set it > > up at the last job I had because I felt it was the best way to get > > redundancy for web services. I had two T-1's, ASN, and had to guarantee > > 100% uptime for one of our clients. Plus the enterprise was becoming > > more web dependent with services we were offering. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mark > > Were the two T1's terminating at two differant ISP's? If so BGP >would be appropriate. If you have 2 T1's terminating at a single ISP in >the same POP then no.
What would you do if they had been terminating at a single ISP in the same POP? Or did you mean "same router"? Thanks, Zsombor > Dave > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > > MADMAN > > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 11:59 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151] > > > > > > n The same was true of my 2-day > > > >>test, again, I had done everything on both days by mid-afternoon and I > > > > just > > > >>sat around with nothing to do but check my work over and over again. > > > > > > Hmm, when I took the lab you were done configuring at noon on the > > second day at which time the liberty was taken to destroy what you had > > built and you then had a couple of hours to put it back together. > > > > Dave > > > > Nor is > > > >>my experience unique - I think that most CCIE's would agree that if > > > > you're > > > >>not done with several hours to spare, you're probably not going to > > > > pass. I > > > >>would venture that very few people that have passed the test have > > > > actually > > > >>required all the of the testtime that was allotted to them. > >> > >>What seems to kill people is that they don't read the questions > > > > carefully > > or > > > >>they simply don't know the material and then they consequently make > >>mistakes, and then in their haste, they start working too fast thereby > >>making more mistakes, etc. But again, if you know the material and > > > > you're > > > >>careful about reading the questions, the test is really quite > > > > straightforward. > > > >> > >>>This is also probably why I got some seriously mixed reviews > >>>from > >>>different CCIEs in terms of the difficulty of the exams (be it > >>>one > >>>day or two day). > >>> > >>>For the record, the one day exam was more suited to my style > >>>than the > >>>two day sounded like. Oh well, I will never have a direct > >>>comparison > >>>now. > >>> > >>>The same was said about the two day as well in terms of speed > >>>but > >>>with some ancillary tricks such as the physical element, etc. > >>>I > >>>suppose that is good to know, but hey, nothing 5 minutes > >>>couldn't > >>>figure out on a web page. > >> > >> > >>I agree that the physical element was dumb. But the troubleshooting > > > > section > > > >>was absolutely critical, see below. > >> > >> > >> > >>>The troubleshooting element was definitely a sorely missed > >>>element > >> > >>>from the two day lab, but trust me, with the one day it is a > >> > >>>dynamic > >>>truobleshooting element built in. It is VERY easy to break > >>>your > >>>working network while you perform the exam. > >> > >> > >>But not realistic. Let's face it - as a network engineer, how many > > > > times > > > >>are you really building networks from scratch vs. how many times are > > > > you > > > >>troubleshooting already-built networks? The fact is, building > > > > networks > > from > > > >>scratch is really only a minor part of the overall job, most of the > > > > time > > you > > > >>are maintaining built networks. A far more useful test would be one > > > > that > > > >>was PURE troubleshooting. For example, you get the whole morning to > >>familiarize yourself with the network, and in the afternoon, all kinds > > > > of > > > >>funky problems get injected into your network. One serious problem > > > > with > > the > > > >>present format is that you end up with guys who are really good at > >>configuring stuff but not very good at troubleshooting existing > > > > networks. > > > >> > >>>Unfortunately, because it is more speed driven and because the > >>>content, while jam packed, is probably 'less', it also means it > >>>might > >>>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. > >> > >> > >> > >>>Regretably, it is difficult to say whether or not it is the > >>>slippery > >>>slope we are going up if we really believe a one day exam is > >>>instantly easier than a two day and that is the reason why > >>>there are > >>>more CCIEs per month, or if it is because the failure rate is > >>>the > >>>same, and the expected value of passing CCIEs goes up due to > >>>the > >>>higher volume of candidates per month. > >>> > >>>Whether or not it is easy or not, I cannot say. I encourage > >>>any > >>>CCIEs of the two day to take a one day and see how it is. I > >>>only > >>>know of one who did it, and he felt it was worse than the two > >>>day > >>>lab. But, like I said, different types of people, different > >>>types of > >>>problem solvers. Might be easier for some. > >> > >> > >>My opinion- it's easier. Significantly easier. Another guy who has > > > > also > > > >>taken both, John Kaberna, has said the same thing. > >> > >> > >>But it's not just the 1-day vs. 2-day thing. It's an entire suite of > >>factors that together have degraded the difficulty of the cert. The > > > > CCIE > > is > > > >>suffering death by a thousand cuts, of which the format change is only > > > > one > > > >>cut (albeit a substantial one). Like I said, the proliferation of > > > > bootcamps > > > >>and dedicated practice labs, and all these other things all take their > > > > toll. > > > >> > >> > >> > >>>One thing is true though. By law of numbers, even if the > >>>percentage > >>>rate of failure IS the same, since the NET number of CCIES > >>>passing is > >>>higher, by supply and demand the value of the CCIE is > >>>dropping. > >>>(someone else mentioned this as well). > >>> > >>>If the percentage of failure is even lower... then the value > >>>just > >>>drops exponentially. :) > >>> > >>>As for having a lower CCIE number, I do not care, I do not > >>>know. > >>>Most of the really older CCIE numbers I know tend to be > >>>mediocre with > >>>the new technology and are sick of knob turning anyway > >>>(although > >>>some are still verry good). The medium numbers seem to be the > >>>best. > >>>;) The ones on the highest numbers end seem to be a mixed bag. > >> > >> > >>I believe that people place far too much emphasis on knowing the new > >>technology. Hey, don't get me wrong, it's important to keep up. But > > > > let's > > > >>not overemphasize this point too much. For example, take the case of > > > > the > > > >>R/S CCIE which is the CCIE that is supposedly geared to > > > > enterprise-level > > > >>networking (those guys who want to do service-provider work are > > > > supposed to > > > >>be looking at the C/S CCIE). Some people have retorted that the > > > > low-number > > > >>R/S CCIE's don't know, say, BGP, so they contend that the > > > > higher-number > > CCIE > > > >>is actually more relevant and useful. But let's be honest - how many > >>enterprises actually run BGP? 1% at most? Probably more like 0.1%, > > > > or > > > >>perhaps even less? And even those enterprises that are running BGP - > > > > how > > > >>many actually have a legitimate need to run BGP vs. how many have just > > > > done > > > >>it for stupid reasons (something that myself, Howard, and Peter van > > > > Oene > > > >>have discussed before)? Even in those cases, how many actually have > > > > enough > > > >>BGP routers that they might actually need to run their own > >>route-reflectors? And furthermore, I have to ask, how many > > > > enterprises > > are > > > >>running BGP not because they actually need it, but because their > > > > network > > > >>engineer has decided to make things more complicated than they really > > > > need > > > >>to be because it means greater job security for himself/herself (i.e. > > > > "...if > > > >>I install BGP everywhere and I'm the only person here who actually > > > > knows > > > >>BGP, that makes it that much harder for them to lay me off...")? How > > > > many > > > >>enterprises are like this? I don't know the answer either, but it's > > > > safe > > to > > > >>say that the number is greater than zero. > >> > >>Or take the case of IP multicasting. With apologies to Howard > > > > Berkowitz - > > > >>pop quiz - name 10 popular IP multicasting applications that, right > > > > now, > > are > > > >>in use in the company you work for. Can't do it, can you? Can you > > > > even > > name > > > >>one? For most people, they can't even name a single one. In all my > > > > years > > > >>of networking, I have not run into a single enterprise that is > > > > actually > > > >>actively using IP multicasting. Now don't get me wrong - I know that > > > > there > > > >>are some rare cases of multicasting being used in the enterprise. But > > > > the > > > >>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. > >> > >>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? > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>>And while someone said the "higher number ones" have "less > >>>experience" that should not be true in theory since the CCIE > >>>was > >>>designed for people who already worked in the networking field > >>>for > >>>years. > >>> > >>>However, I will agree in practice, that does seem to happen > >>>often > >>>(higher numbers, less experience). > >>> > >>>I think as with all things in life, take the individual on a > >>>case to > >>>case basis. You are going to find good and bad apples in every > >>>basket. The CCIE is still a very good certification, I do not > >>>think > >>>anyone is denying that. But I do not think it is clear if it > >>>is > >>>blatantly easier now. > >> > >> > >>I didn't say that it had turned into the CCNA. But it's not the > > > > rockhard > > > >>exam that it used to be. And that's not the fault of anybody here. > > > > That's > > > >>the fault of Cisco itself. > >> > >> > >> > >>>-Carroll Kong > >> > > >-- >David Madland >CCIE# 2016 >Sr. Network Engineer >Qwest Communications >612-664-3367 > >"Government can do something for the people only in proportion as it >can do something to the people." -- Thomas Jefferson Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71027&t=70151 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
