dynamik wrote: » Do they offer some overlap between the current and new lab once it's released, or does it replace it that day? It seems like five months really isn't that much notice for such an intense certification.
Turgon wrote: » The additions make sense from a field perspective. It's also a counter to the appalling practice of lab cheating that does go on. I imagine the training vendors will be clobbered with requests to update their training materials but I doubt they will manage in time. 360 will most likely be the safest bet for candidates post October 18th.
nel wrote: » So if the change goes ahead as stated, how will this effect your prep turgon?
APA wrote: » 360 program is actually the only training solution aligned to the V4.0 blueprints.... so it'll be interesting to see whether all the training vendors do get there solutions sorted or whether Cisco pushes them to resell the 360 program... I think the changes are warranted and valid.... it clearly states that if you haven't booked labs\writtens yet and are planning to sit after october 18th then to be studying according to the v4.0 blueprints.... Lab candidates might be a bit short changed I think... but as for the written that shouldn't be to hard to cover the extra topics between now and then...
aragoen_celtdra wrote: » One opinion I've read, and I can't remember who or where, brought up a legitimate argument that MPLS shouldn't have been introduced in the R&S lab and should have stayed in the SP track. In thinking about it, I agree with that assessment. My reasoning is two-fold: 1.) In an enterprise environment, most engineers will not encounter too much MPLS configuration/provisioning, etc. This is usually done in the service providers domain. At least that was the experience with two previous companies I've worked for that implemented MPLS. 2.) MPLS, already included in the written section should be enough to provide the enterprise engineer the necessary knowledge to work with the service provider's engineers. Tell me if I'm way off in my observation. Do you think MPLS (at least the lab portion) should've stayed in SP track?
nel wrote: » You could also argue that for other cisco exams too - where other subjects spill into a exam it shouldnt really be in. Or at least from my experiance. Btw, Turgon mentioned many folk cheating on the labs. I thought that was highly unlikely considering the amount of prep required. Or was that in reference to the written?
apd123 wrote: » Overall I think the changes were on point, just looking at the security topics that are not listed anymore makes me feel better. I get they want you to secure "R&S devices, but it seems to me they might as well just throw an ASA on there as in my experience few companies are using the router to provide Firewalling/VPN/IPS/NAT topics they are testing. I am fine with Frame Relay staying on the exam as it is used primarily to cause layer 3 issues, however they should go ahead and **** frame relay traffic shaping the amount of time I have wasted on this is staggering as it is in almost every vendor lab. The problem with leaving MPLS off of the exam is then a CCIE may not be able to answer an obvious question like does the CE router need to support MPLS or VRF? I do realize the answer to that question is the case for MPLS not being on the exam. Being on the written is a valid point, but it seems like Cisco given up on the written as a valid proof of knowledge. I would also argue that if you feel it doesn't belong on the Lab then it shouldn't belong on the Written either. For me reading 40 pages in a exam prep book 6-18 months before I pass the lab hardly qualifies me to consult on anything MPLS related; it wasn't until my SP prep when I could have had an intelligent conversation about the technology.
wow, i think i should agree to those supports MPLS should stay in SP (cisco should be careful with this or else ... ), and that 2 hours trouble shooting
Overall I think the changes were on point, just looking at the security topics that are not listed anymore makes me feel better. I get they want you to secure "R&S devices, but it seems to me they might as well just throw an ASA on there as in my experience few companies are using the router to provide Firewalling/VPN/IPS/NAT topics they are testing. I am fine with Frame Relay staying on the exam as it is used primarily to cause layer 3 issues, however they should go ahead and **** frame relay traffic shaping the amount of time I have wasted on this is staggering as it is in almost every vendor lab.
The problem with leaving MPLS off of the exam is then a CCIE may not be able to answer an obvious question like does the CE router need to support MPLS or VRF? I do realize the answer to that question is the case for MPLS not being on the exam. Being on the written is a valid point, but it seems like Cisco given up on the written as a valid proof of knowledge. I would also argue that if you feel it doesn't belong on the Lab then it shouldn't belong on the Written either. For me reading 40 pages in a exam prep book 6-18 months before I pass the lab hardly qualifies me to consult on anything MPLS related; it wasn't until my SP prep when I could have had an intelligent conversation about the technology.
CCIEWANNABE wrote: » question is, with them replacing the 3725 routers with the 18xx routers, will we still be able to use dynamips to simulate the routing portion of the lab and then tie in the 3560's for the switching portion? that's what i'm worried about.
