Re: certification (was: eBay is looking for network heavies...)
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: i assume, but have zero actual knowledge/experience, that certification courses/programs actually cover all the corners and minutiae of a subject such as is-is. so you come out knowing all the options and details, 42% of which you will use; or maybe 24% if you are parsimonious. while i no longer have spare room in my head for a lot of stuff i will not use, having some clue about what's outside my current practice zone would be useful. if i was young and had spare brain cells and time, i might read through the course ware and do some playing in the lab. but you can't move packets on pieces of paper. Normally a lurker, I agree. I feel that most of us fall into some range below. - New Build-out / Startupish: All that cool stuff and proper tech is the go forward until the money runs out. - ENTERPRISE: PHB demands you use vendor X and solution Y for no technical reason. - Mom-Pop / Third World / NPO: Do what we can with what we have. - Out Sourcing Vendor Manager: juggling so many vendors doing different things. - IXP: What ever can support the legacy and current tech in a safe way. - Add your own. Certificates are a fun topic. I think if a 17 year old wanted to prove their technical knowledge a certificate would be a good method. Certificates are also looked at as structure the same way a degree might be by hiring managers (don't really know how I feel on this). I think Randy touched on a good topic of how do the established people take time to pull in some related knowledge that is not part of their normal roll at this time. Learning ahead of time vs implementing on demand. All in all, silly questions like describe traceroute show real world knowledge and communication skill. The later may be more useful at times. -- ~ Andrew lathama Latham ~
Re: certification (was: eBay is looking for network heavies...)
i assume, but have zero actual knowledge/experience, that certification courses/programs actually cover all the corners and minutiae of a subject such as is-is. so you come out knowing all the options and details, 42% of which you will use; or maybe 24% if you are parsimonious. while i no longer have spare room in my head for a lot of stuff i will not use, having some clue about what's outside my current practice zone would be useful. if i was young and had spare brain cells and time, i might read through the course ware and do some playing in the lab. but you can't move packets on pieces of paper.
RE: certification (was: eBay is looking for network heavies...)
Randy Bush wrote: but you can't move packets on pieces of paper. Or can you? RFC's 6214 2549 1149 ;)
Re: certification (was: eBay is looking for network heavies...)
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net wrote: Randy Bush wrote: but you can't move packets on pieces of paper. Or can you? RFC's 6214 2549 1149 Sure, but rfc1149 needs some work before it could be a viable way of moving packets. For example: the rfc calls for printing a diagram on paper, which is error-prone, and the ink is expensive. Instead they should be using a hole punch to encode the message on the paper tape, bit by bit, with check bits for error correction. Transport of the tapes by truck or car would be more suitable for bandwidth requirements of bulk transfer. Also, the paper can be recycled more easily by reinserting punched and gluing back punched holes from previous message exchanges, than attempting to rewet and bottle ink. ;) -- -JH
Re: certification (was: eBay is looking for network heavies...)
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net wrote: Randy Bush wrote: but you can't move packets on pieces of paper. Or can you? RFC's 6214 2549 1149 But how many avian carriers would you need to move the packets current pushed around per second, and how many Mercedes' would have their paint ruined from that number of carriers, or would the number be large enough to collapse into a star (obligatory what-if xkcd reference: http://what-if.xkcd.com/99/)
