Thank you for asking for Mr. Doyle's input. His sentiments encourage me and inspire me to press on and learn as much as I can. The line "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," is precisely what I needed to hear from someone in his position."
""cebuano"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > 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=45029&t=45001 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
