Real Equipment Vs Emulation = Both Equal as Experience?

So My friend whose an administrator at a large university and I had a discussion about things...

Mostly about how I have 10 years of experience with routers. And should put that on my resume. What?! How?!

I'll quote:

"An emulator is pretty much the real thing. The only difference is that the hardware is virtual. What's the difference between working in an emulator and working in a terminal window? You can't see or touch what you're doing either way. The only difference is that your actions have consequences." ...

"It's like saying a culinary student isn't a chef because they haven't cooked at a 4 star restaurant. You've got the knives. You know how to prepare the food. The only difference is that they can now give someone food poisoning."

I was saying I don't have experience with the routers. The only thing I've done is emulation.

I promptly told him it's not the real thing - I'm missing blinking lights.

What are you thoughts?

Find more posts tagged with

Save $250 on 2025 certification boot camps from Infosec!

Book now with code EOY2025

Button

Comments

lantech

10 years experience with routers?

There is just no replacement for experience. If you have no job history as a network engineer how are you going to place any kind of experience on your resume? Sure I have some real equipment at home, but it's not nearly the same as working in a production environment on a daily basis. Would it be great if I could say I had actual experience? Sure, but then I'd be lying.

YFZblu

I think that would be extremely misleading to employers. An emulator is sort of a network utopia; things work as they should. Not the case in a production environment, and if you say you have a decade of experience, people would assume that means in a production environment.

The hands-on value the CCNA requires is good though, and it's not to be discounted. But I think employers know that if you have your CCNA you have a certain amount of experience working with the CLI, which is why the CCNA is such a respected certification.

NetworkVeteran

First, I agree with your friend that emulator experience is worth as much as typical home hardware lab experience. A 10-device emulated GNS lab with 12.4T IOS is superior to a four device hardware lab with end of sale hardware and IOS 12.1 for learning MPLS VPNs, for example.

Second, no way, Jose! Neither counts under the (work) experience column of your resume. Lab and production aren't the same.

shodown

Yeah there are too many other things that come up at work

1. Did we buy the right IOS licences
2. Did we ordered serial T1 Circuit, the provider at the last min told us they only have ethernet?
3. Why is this router rebooting everyday?

These are just a few of the things that emulators or simulators won't teach you. You have to get in there everyday and put out fires to become good.

SteveO86

There is a big difference being setup a router in an emulator and troubleshooting a real network outage with people over your shoulder.

It's that a dangerous game to play. I've been cooking my own breakfast/lunch/dinner for 10+ years can I call myself a professional chef?

m3zilla

"It's like saying a culinary student isn't a chef because they haven't cooked at a 4 star restaurant. You've got the knives. You know how to prepare the food. The only difference is that they can now give someone food poisoning."

No, it's more like saying I should put down 10 years of cooking experience because I've been grilling steaks all my life.

The problem with working with GNS3 is that you're building stuff from the ground up. You're configuring everything as it should be, which translate to zero troubleshooting experience. There are no moving parts in your lab, and if something breaks, it's because you did it intentionally, or you made another change that broke it. Either way, you know exactly why it broke.

dontstop

Simulators != Real world experience
Simulators == Kit

It depends on how your brain functions, i like having kit infront of me and seeing the physical links and devices, others don't mind have a virtual environment. As long as you have all the features they are much of a muchness. The only thing you will miss out on with the Virtual kit is the maintaince dust, failed PSU, replacing memory (all things you will quickly pickup on the job).

I would never put Sim/Lab time on a resume, there are no SLAs, no metrics and no real world issues like "change control"; These count as "experience" when you really need to change X, but you cannot do it because it will take servers/users down.

okplaya

Everyone loves to start troubleshooting at Layer 3 because you don't have to leave your desk. After a few hours (or days) you realize that the SFP is bad. We're all guilty haha.

I agree, you shouldn't put personal lab time on a resume. If you do lab consistently however, you should be able to demonstrate a high level of knowledge in any interview so you'll benefit in the end.

Roguetadhg

So by personal lab, you mean "Physical Lab Time" or "GNS3 Lab" time?

Is it safe to say that you have experience with routers and switches - if you've built your own lab, maintaining... MPLS network, running network traffic generators from SolarWind with a mix host of WinXP,7 and Ubuntu?

Should labs, period, not be in a resume? I was just stabbing in the dark for a network example.

NetworkVeteran

I wanted to add something that no replies have touched on.

I've never been asked "How many years of experience do you have with Cisco routers?" in a technical interview. The questions tend to be closer to, "How much experience do you have with this specific type of network?". Even real-world routing/switching experience prepares you only for certain types of jobs and not for others. I have discussed lab topologies in interviews. The closer your lab topology comes to a large-scale, multiprotocol network that meets real-world constraints and goals, the better the chance you have of selling it in an interview.

Should labs, period, not be in a resume?

Rogue, I just said to keep it far away from your "experience" section. I didn't say to nix it. If you have notable labbing experience, and no real experience, I'd find some way to stick it in. Perhaps as one bullet of an extremely short (3 bullets) hobby section.

Example wrote:

Hobbies:
I love to run.
I'm an active member of Habitat for Humanity.
Ask me about the monster 20-device OSPF/BGP/MPLS-TE lab I run at home!

lantech

I don't really think you should put them on a resume.

Course if you've done something like maybe built a medium to large enterprise setup on your own in a lab then you might print out the configs and take them along with you to an interview to show them what you've done. But remember to state that it was for practice or a school project if done in school and not a real job you did for someone.

hiddenknight821

Only Chuck Norris... I mean Scott Morris can list his network lab on his resume.

paul78

Interesting discussion. I personally do not see any issues with listing one's lab experience/work on a resume. It seems to be a valid and relevant topic. I actually would not advocate positioning lab experience/work as a hobby. But also not position it as work experience.

Perhaps not including lab experience is a norm for persons in the networking - the analogy that I'm most familiar is with software developers, most developers that provide regular and significant contributions to open-source software are quite proud to place their involvement on their resume. And it's normally very well received.

Legacy User

In the past when I went on interviews employers would ask how I managed to get my ccna. I would mention I have a lab at home then go into the details of what models I work with and what I've done but make sure I sound real damn technical at it. They always seem impressed and say wow thats pretty cool.

I wouldn't ever place it on the resume as experience I placed it under skills section and listed the my newer routers/switches along with the ios version 12.4. If everything was done on an emulator it would be different I wouldn't have placed the models on the resume not sure how I'd sell it either. Physical topologies always sounds better then an emulator even though gns3 does the same crap on the cli.

RouteThisWay

When you put experience down, personally- I am concerned with your work/professional experience.

As pointed out multiple times- just because I grill steaks at home doesn't mean I have decades of experience as a chef in a business environment. There is more than just cooking when you are a chef- just like there is more to just working in a router as a Network Admin etc. You don't learn how to collaborate on projects, how to communicate at that level with peers, how to solve complex problems, etc. You don't have the pressure of a large production system going down with every person above your pay grade in every department breathing down your neck. Just like if I overcook my steak a little bit- no problem. Do that in a 4/5* restaurant- that is coming back, meal is getting comped, you are cooking more than you would have- and just cost the restaurant money.

Home lab/emulation shouldn't be listed on a resume as professional experience. Sorry.

Legacy User

@Routethisway Well thats fine you are entitled to your own opinion. If you were responding to my post I was just simply mentioning my past experiences it wasn't by any means indicating whether adding that is correct or not. It just hasn't been viewed in a negative light for me at least. I used it to beef up the resume at the time when I did not have that much experience.

RouteThisWay

I wasn't responding to any post in particular. Just as, you pointed out, stating my opinion- and one that is popular among most people.

I agree- mentioning you have a home lab is cool and is def worth positive points. I just wouldn't view it as professional experience- but I would give you points for desire to learn on your own time and investing time in to your career. Those are usually people who will invest themselves into their positions as well.

Legacy User

I agree with you I wouldn't ever count that as professional experience but for someone starting without much/no real world experience you have to upsell within reason for those entry/junior positions. If the only experience you have is home lab time whether its cisco or multiple vm's running ms servers with multiple domains with formed trusts betweens multiple forest, etc and you only work part time at shoprite.

Well then you got to do what you got to do and add it accordingly to the resume. But of course it would make a world of difference if you had coinciding certs with the tech you are trying to sell your knowledge on. That's why many people have a skills section listed separately from the work experience and it would be to only list the material you are competent on. If you can't thoroughly explain anything in the skill section take it off. Noone is going to call you in if you look like a dud on your resume you have to make that resume look as impressive as possible.

NOC-Ninja

You cant beat experience. There are a lot of things that need to be considered at emulator vs experience.
A person can put whatever he wants in his resume. However, the engineer/interviewer will figure out if he has real live network experience.

Legacy User

Your right if its placed on the resume you better be ready to back it up.

NetworkVeteran

dmarcisco wrote: »

If everything was done on an emulator it would be different I wouldn't have placed the models on the resume not sure how I'd sell it either. Physical topologies always sounds better then an emulator even though gns3 does the same crap on the cli.

Well, the way I would sell using emulators would be to emphasize the many large-scale, multiprotocol, complex topologies I've worked on using a modern IOS. This tends to be a competitive advantage vs. those with hardware labs. The interviewers I "worry" about tend to be CCIE-level, and so already are familiar with many of the advantages of emulators. Troubleshooting on networks with more devices, traffic, and routes tend to bring more skills into play that aren't necessary when troubleshooting a network with 2-4 devices. Those skills tend to matter more in the roles I've worked at than changing memory or making cables. I think either approach, well-done, is not difficult to sell. I think either approach, half-arsed, would hurt your portfolio.

(This is hypotethical. I have enough real-world experience I do not place lab experience anywhere near my resume. I will sometimes discuss it in interviews and it works for me.)

ChickenNuggetz

What about adding your lab and that experience under "other experience" or "personal projects" on your resume? I agree with everyone else that putting that lab experience under PROFESSIONAL experience is very misleading. At the same time, lab experience shows your initiative and desire for learning networking technology, and that's not a bad thing!

Legacy User

@networkveteran True good point.

But to the OP 10 years of lab experience if i read that on a resume I'd personally pass on it. Sounds like a crock to me.

Legacy User

I'd personally wouldn't place that you have a lab more so that your knowledgeable in certain areas.

log32

I think "implementing" it in your resume is fine, like "setting up lab environment for X Y Z" - it is knowledge after all, but definitely not production experience.

apr911

paul78 wrote: »

Perhaps not including lab experience is a norm for persons in the networking - the analogy that I'm most familiar is with software developers, most developers that provide regular and significant contributions to open-source software are quite proud to place their involvement on their resume. And it's normally very well received.

Contributing to open-source software is something to be proud of and should be well received. It shows an ability to work with a wide-range and dispersed group of people on a project that has real-world applications and problems. That being said, I dont know any programmer who would list on their resume the countless batch, cron and mini-programs they write for personal use as "experience."

Those mini-programs and scriptlets run basically in a vacuum as the programmer has control over the box on which they run and the environment variables they use to run. I could write a program that connects to a backend DB and not have to program any error handling on what to do if the database or table doesnt exist since I control the backend DB and I know it will always exist (or if it doesnt I dont care if the program crashes horrifically because Im the only one to see it). But in the real world you have to account for that possibility and the program should in theory be able to handle that gracefully or maybe even fix it (which involves writing another subroutine).

Which is basically how I look at emulation vs real equipment in production. Emulation you have total control over the environment so you know its going to function (even real equipment in a lab is the same way) but in the real world you need to account for user error and other events that occur in the matter of running a production environment with multiple topologies, technologies, etc.

Spanning-tree is a really good example of this. You can control spanning tree really well in a lab or emulated environment but you are unlikey able to control it quite as well in a production environment especially if the environment changes dynamically due to users.

Another example I can give is a user bringing in a computer that is setup to serve as a DHCP server. What happens when you plug that into your network? How do you determine the issue, track down the rogue dhcp server, etc? In a lab/emulated environment you would already know the issue and where it is. In production, you might not think about a rogue DHCP server right away since its not something that happens all that often.

Bottom-line, emulation and labs are good to help gain fundamentals and can be listed on a resume to demonstrate you have knowledge of them but they do not equate to experience as it is impossible to truly simulate real world problems with any technology...