What employer change are you talking about ? I believe Jeff Doyle was never a Cisco employee.
Schwantz ""Kevin Cullimore"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I'm concerned that his focus is a little too narrow (and possibly distracted > based upon the employer change) to be regarded as "the" authority on the > cert over and above someone like, say, Bruce Caslow. I'm going by the > blueprint, but it seems as if the exam encompasses a wider scope than the > contents of Vol I & II (my opinion probably doesn't count, but I always > regarded those two books as ones to read to gain perspective on routing, not > pass a test). > > More importantly, this post underscores a level of description problem with > many portions of the thread. > > It's inadequate to only consider the case of a person with just lab > experience vs. the case of the person with no formal/training but (possibly > too) much experience: there exist too many in-between cases where the > outcome differs. > > In the case of someone with clear potential who has managed to envelop > themselves in a firm theoretical grounding and a deep empirical > understanding of router behavior under controlled conditions without the > benefit of on-the-job experience, The attitude of employers is all-too-often > to go with the experienced competent individual (all else being equal), > since they can immediately apply their experience to scenarios they have > encountered before, scenarios that would take far too long and consume far > too much in the way of financial equipment to stumble across in a lab > setting. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "cebuano" > To: > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 9:55 PM > Subject: Jeff Doyle's official response re: lab rats [7:45001] > > > > Dear fellow professionals, > > In fear of "taking a person's words and using them out of context", > > I decided to ask Mr. Doyle himself. He was kind enough to respond > > to my e-mail, and I'm posting this with the hope of encouraging both > > "lab rats" and gurus alike to aim for knowledge, not only certs, > > and in the process help your fellow man/woman. > > I put my faith in everyone to be civilized and not bash Mr. Doyle's > > reputation, even if you disagree with his point of view. > > Last but not least, I hope that this will put an end to personal attacks > > that have become more common lately, unlike what groupstudy.com > > used to be 2 to 3 years ago when I first signed up. > > > > Thank you. > > Elmer > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Jeff Doyle > > To: elmer > > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 2:28 PM > > Subject: Re: Please care to comment on Vol.2 page 792 > > > > Hi Elmer, > > > > Thanks for the clarification-- my definition of "lab rat" is a bit > different > > than yours. At Juniper, the lab rats tend to be the most experienced field > > engineers. Nonetheless, under your definition (lab rat = someone with more > > theoretical than practical experience), the statement applies equally to > > those > > with some practical experience and those with little or none. > > > > I know exactly the kinds of "old timers" to which you refer-- typically > these > > are guys who have gained their knowledge gradually over the years through > > practical experience. Scratch the surface of most of these guys, and you > will > > find little understanding of the foundations of the protocols and > > technologies > > they think they are experts at. Therein lies the source of their > derogatory > > attitude toward "newbies": Insecurity in their own skills. > > > > I regularly conduct technical interviews for Juniper, and I can tell you > that > > if a candidate has a deep understanding of the theories and facts of the > > various IP networking protocols, I am impressed regardless of the > candidate's > > practical experience. If the engineer is smart and aggressive, it is easy > > enough to team him or her up with a mentor to add the practical > experience. > > > > There is an opposite view on all this: I've encountered many people with > > CCIEs > > that think the certification is all they need to land a high-level > networking > > job. For me, seeing the CCIE certification on a resume makes me look > closer, > > and is usually enough to make me schedule a face-to-face interview. But > once > > the interview takes place, I expect the candidate to impress me with a > level > > of knowledge that goes well beyond what is required to pass the lab. The > > first > > three or four minutes of the interview is generally enough for me to > > determine > > whether the candidate truly knows his or her stuff, or whether the CCIE > was > > won by learning just what is needed to pass the lab and no more. > > > > All this long-winded reply is saying is: Yes, getting the CCIE will help > you > > get ahead even if your practical experience is limited. It is an excellent > > way > > to prove your capabilities to prospective employers, but be sure the depth > of > > your theoretical knowledge well exceeds the rather limited things you need > to > > know to pass the lab. > > > > As for your two PS's: I used 11-something for most of the book, and wrote > the > > BGP chapters quite early, which accounts for the outdated statement you > cite > > (and a few others). I have been discussing doing a second edition of the > book > > with Cisco Press to bring it up to date. The conflicting statements about > > OSPF > > P-T-MP is a known error, and should be corrected soon in newer printings > of > > the book. > > > > Best regards, > > Jeff > > > > At 11:46 PM 5/23/2002 -0400, you wrote: > > > > Jeff, > > Thanks for the response. I know you are a very busy (and sought after) > man. > > I just happened to read this particular page at a time when people new > to > > the > > networking field are despised by old timers who feel that "lab rats" > don't > > deserve to pass the CCIE lab since all they have is lab experience. > > I was wondering if you personally feel that most of what one gets tested > on > > in the lab have little resemblance with most production networks. > > Two reasons for asking you are: > > 1.Obviouly, every lab candidate as well as my CCIE friends regard you as > > the authority on this particular certification. > > 2. You are the author of the second CCIE bible which I am quoting. > > > > What is your opinion on a person who passes the lab with very little > > "real" networking experience? > > > > Respectfully, > > Elmer Deloso > > > > P.S. What IOS version did you use as reference when you wrote Vol.2? > > Because after checking CCO, page93 of your book talks about BGP > > version number negotiation until both neighbors agree on the same > > version. The Cisco implementation of BGP in Cisco IOS Release 12.0(6)T > > or later releases supports BGP Version 4 only and does not support > > dynamic negotiation down to Version 2. > > > > P.P.S. Does Ciscopress consult you regarding errata to your books? > > Because Vol.1 page 417 says OSPF packets in point-to-multipoint are > > multicast, but pages 433 and 451 say these are unicast. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=45016&t=45001 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
