I was at LA Networkers this year in the CCIE Power Session, which had 2-3
proctors speaking. The gist of what I got regarding moving to a one-day lab
was to cut the fluffy CCNA-level stuff (ip addressing, etc.) and use some
sort of automation to move it along. Between that, and a longer day (I
don't recall how long, 10 or 12 hour day), it was expected to have the same
content, just less time wasting stuff.
I think this makes sense in general, but I'd still like to see it stay a
two-day format and just add more content. If it was really a matter of the
lines to get into the lab, they could just add more labs and locations.
One example of how things had already been simplified (some time back):
you're not required to configure your terminal server, where-as in the past
you were.
Basically, you need to know your stuff cold, because you'll be jumping
straight into it, and you're also going to need to be able to get very
familiar, very fast, with different scenarios. Nuke your home lab often and
force yourself to move cables around and use completely new addressing.
Don't get comfortable like you may be with your work network.
Fortunately, those of us that consult already have the advantage there.
Just about weekly, and even daily at times, I walk into a new customer
network I've never seen (or saw for two days six months ago and have terse
notes) and am expected to troubleshoot or install new gear. Of course, my
toes get a workout.
PS As a side note, I hear Halifax has the best passing rate. Folks book
there just to have a slight edge over SJO or RTP. Of course, with that
rumor floating around, I can see Cisco toughening up there ;-)
--
Jason Roysdon, CCNP+Security/CCDP, MCSE, CNA, Network+, A+
List email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http://jason.artoo.net/
""Brian Dennis"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Peter,
> The issue isn't a one day / two day issue. I'm sure the one day lab with
be
> tough and at first we will see a lot of people failing it. Cisco has to do
> this to ensure that it looks like a good decision but wait for a few
months
> after a ton of people take it. The beta one day lab was really hard and
> failed many people. Bruce Caslow scored a 27/100 and Phil Remaker scored
> 35/100. Some people declined to take it because they knew that they would
be
> setup to fail ;) But that isn't what Cisco is trying to do. Cisco is using
> the long waiting list as an excuse to move to a one day remote lab. If
Cisco
> really wanted to shorten the waiting list they would fix the written but
> that wouldn't give them an excuse to go to a one day remote lab.
>
> People should not be fooled into thinking this a one day / two day issue
or
> a long waiting list issue. This is just a start of the changes to come for
> the CCIE lab.
>
> Brian Dennis, CCIE #2210 (R&S)(ISP/Dial) CCSI #98640
> 5G Networks, Inc.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Peter Van Oene
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 11:03 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: New CCIE Lab!!??!!! [7:12926] - IGNORE THIS - JOKE
> [7:12980]
>
>
> Are you missing the point that the lab with still be very tough? The only
> issue is meeting the customer demand for rack time for testing. Cisco
> cannot do this in a two day format and much of the two day stuff was
> overhead. I personally think one day will be tougher.
>
> Pete
>
>
> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>
> On 7/19/2001 at 1:25 PM Ciaron Gogarty wrote:
>
> >I do believe that the format IS changing to a one day lab, so it's
> >actually
> >taking the piss out of the reasons Cisco are giving for changing the
> >format...
> >
> >Personally, I think CCIE is THE most respected vendor certification out
> >there, so why change what (to my mind) has been a great format for
> >seperating the weed from the chaff?? In the end, the market will get
> >swamped with half baked CCIE's who have no substantive real world
> >experience
> >and the value of the cert will go down... much like the way the MCSE
went..
> >
> >thats my two cents
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Andrew Larkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >Sent: 19 July 2001 14:52
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: RE: New CCIE Lab!!??!!! [7:12926] - IGNORE THIS - JOKE
> >[7:12943]
> >
> >
> >thanks....
> >
> >I read this after an all night work session - half asleep
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Ciaron Gogarty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >Sent: 19 July 2001 15:23
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: RE: New CCIE Lab!!??!!! [7:12926]
> >
> >
> >I think u should read the article more closely
> >
> >;-)
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Andrew Larkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >Sent: 19 July 2001 10:05
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: FW: New CCIE Lab!!??!!! [7:12926]
> >
> >
> >This is what I received from a colleague.
> >
> >Is this true?????
> >http://angelfire.com/my/no1daylab/new_format.html
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=13218&t=12926
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
