Freshness of CCIE tracks?

BeTheNetwork

While R&S continues to set the bar by including relevant technology, is there a problem with the other CCIE tracks. Here's my source of chagrin...

• VOICE Track: CUCM Version 7 - CUCM Latest Version is 9
• SP Track: The lab environment includes IOU, but there are no educational use IOU instances available to the public
• SECURITY Track: ACS 4.1 ? ASA < 8.3 ? No ISE ?

Even the R&S exam can be scrutinized for still running 12.4, but there are so many technologies covered by R&S 12.4 appears to be a good bridge between the legacy and new protocols.

I can see the argument about the time delta between written and lab, but CUCM is being tested two whole versions behind what organizations are now buying.

Are the exam blueprints creating more work than is necessary, or am I being to persnickety?

Ahriakin

On the security side I think part of it is down to deployment rates. Most folks I know in the business are holding off moving from 8.2 on the ASA as later versions offer nothing really compelling but require some nasty configuration syntax changes (dear god, what they did with NAT...). Same for ACS, 4 is heavily deployed, 5 not so much.

But it is true they could do a better job of keeping up. They are WAY behind on documentation for the CCIE Sec, they pretty much gave up attempting to provide any official guides a few years back.

BeTheNetwork

Not to mention the screwed up ASA code. ASA-X is a min of 8.6 and there is now 9.0. It's like licensing wasn't hard enough, we need to add complexity to our versions.

As far as the adoption rate, I am noticing that people are now pulling the trigger. If there is an upside, every customer ordering an X platform or 8.4 update is also ordering professional services to help them migrate code, implement NAT, and teach NAT. Its like the Cisco Partners were behind the CLI change.

Maced129

**** wrote: »

• SECURITY Track: ACS 4.1 ? ASA < 8.3 ? No ISE ?

CCIE Sec 4.0 is up to date!