How much harder is CCNP compared to CCNA?

chickenlicken09

And does it typically take double the study time using lammle books, vids etc.

networker050184

It all depends on your current level of technical knowledge.

FloOz

I dove straight into CCNP studies right after CCNA (around that time I also got my first networking job). Basically all the concepts just go a lot more in depth. Its not necessarily harder but in my opinion it does require a lot more study time. I have been studying route for about 3 months now and still don't feel confident taking the test.

NetworkVeteran

The first key difference is the CCNA is intended for and best helps those with zero experience, whereas the CCNP is intended for and best helps those with at least a year of experience. Technically, gaining a year of experience is infinitely harder than gaining zero experience, and we've had many threads about the low utility of a zero-experience CCNP.

As far as material covered, the CCNA official certification library weighs in at 1500 pages whereas the CCNP official certification library weighs in at 1800 pages. However, given the attention to detail and to labbing in the CCNP, most people will spend significantly longer trudging through them. Perhaps three times as long is a good estimate?

The exams are no harder nor easier, given you have adequate experience, knowledge, and practice. That is as it should be. The exam is intended to test basic knowledge and abilities, not your test-taking skills.

shodown

I had to take the Composite 3 times to pass. I was working as a WAN enigneer, so the BGP/OSPF was easy to me. The EIGRP, and Switching gave me fits, especially one of the sims requiring switching.

Kory

Not really harder, if you study ccnp right after ccna it actually answers a lot of questions I had that the ccna material stopped short of giving you. Things like: "the stub flag has to match in order to form relationships between routers..."

My brain said "why?" but as far as ccna was concerned, the answer was "because we say so."

When I got to ccnp material suddenly everything I learned in CCNA made more sense. They weren't rote memorized facts, they were now a living breathing logical organism.

Still, expect to spend a LOT of time on this. I did plenty of videos and books, but it wasn't until I got into some hardcore labbing that everything clicked for me.

f0rgiv3n

I think that for me, studying for the CCNA was hardest. Going from no knowledge to some knowledge is harder than going from some knowledge to more knowledge. Why? because by doing the CCNA you have already done the groundwork, the foundation. Learning all the information the CCNP has is time consuming, and it's not "easy" by any means. I just found it easier for me to connect the dots in my brain due to my past CCNA studies and work experience.

Now with that said, I could not have gone into CCNP right after CCNA. The only reason it clicked so well was the COMBINATION of my CCNA and my experience at my jobs I had after obtaining the CCNA.

Quick answer? Summed up by what networker said "depends on your current level of technical knowledge".

lrb

I found it much easier to study for the CCNP because the amount of topics for each exam is much less. For ROUTE I probably spent a good month just watching OSPF debugs and trying to match up the output from what the books were saying.

Also the more effort you put into CCNA the easier it will be to study for the CCNP because you're foundation knowledge will be solid.

All the best!

wintermute000

NetworkVeteran wrote: »

The exams are no harder nor easier, given you have adequate experience, knowledge, and practice. That is as it should be. The exam is intended to test basic knowledge and abilities, not your test-taking skills.

Apologies but I disagree strongly. Its good to assess test taking skills thats it. I could think of better sims whilst standing on my head. Some of the sims I got in ROUTE were hilariously simple. And at the end of the day it should be all about how good you are at driving routers, not memorising timers and very specific details that you might need one incident in a hundred.

All exams should be like TSHOOT except twice as hard,. ROUTE/SWITCH should be flipped so its 70% sims 30% theory. And have enough variation in the sims to throw the dumpers. Seriously how do you explain all the certified people who look at you blankly when you tell them to configure XYZ. At a bare minimum all the questions that say 'given the below output...', screw the output, give them a command line and a diagram and tell the candidate to work it out. Becuase thats real life. (and in real life you often don't even have a goddarned diagram).

alucheni

wintermute000 wrote: »

Apologies but I disagree strongly. Its good to assess test taking skills thats it. I could think of better sims whilst standing on my head. Some of the sims I got in ROUTE were hilariously simple. And at the end of the day it should be all about how good you are at driving routers, not memorising timers and very specific details that you might need one incident in a hundred.

All exams should be like TSHOOT except twice as hard,. ROUTE/SWITCH should be flipped so its 70% sims 30% theory. And have enough variation in the sims to throw the dumpers. Seriously how do you explain all the certified people who look at you blankly when you tell them to configure XYZ. At a bare minimum all the questions that say 'given the below output...', screw the output, give them a command line and a diagram and tell the candidate to work it out. Becuase thats real life. (and in real life you often don't even have a goddarned diagram).

I'm not sure I understand the "no experience w/ cert" stigma. Traditional engineers certainly aren't required to have experience along with their engineering degree... why shouldn't networking folks get foundation first, and the job second? If we want the CCNP to be tougher and more sim-based, there should be practice sims out there that are reasonable preparation material towards this end.

I suppose I'm a bit raw because I was in a shop where this stigma existed (I got my CCNP sans-experience)... except, once they finally let me into the networking department (I was a desktop tech), I found that I had superior knowledge versus a handful of the non-certified 'senior' network engineers, all who had this precious experience I had heard about. Many of them didn't understand the data layer quite right and they would rely on server software to do their subnet designs. It was frustrating.

Don't get me wrong - experience is very important. I was clueless when it came to analysis tools, Unix, and all the various quirks of each model of switch and router. Also, my abilities increased significantly once I had a lab to play with. Still, if someone can pass the CCNP, I think it's reasonable to at least consider that person for increased responsibility.

Also, there are ways to intuit whether someone is smart without bombarding them with tech questions. Are they witty? Do they seem like a methodical sort of personality? Does their transcript show an A in calculus? Because of my personal experience, on the few interviews I've given, these are the things I tend to focus on. Experience is certainly great, but it's important not to keep out someone talented just because they're not in the club yet.

just my 2c,

aaron0011

wintermute000 wrote: »

Apologies but I disagree strongly. Its good to assess test taking skills thats it. I could think of better sims whilst standing on my head. Some of the sims I got in ROUTE were hilariously simple. And at the end of the day it should be all about how good you are at driving routers, not memorising timers and very specific details that you might need one incident in a hundred.

All exams should be like TSHOOT except twice as hard,. ROUTE/SWITCH should be flipped so its 70% sims 30% theory. And have enough variation in the sims to throw the dumpers. Seriously how do you explain all the certified people who look at you blankly when you tell them to configure XYZ. At a bare minimum all the questions that say 'given the below output...', screw the output, give them a command line and a diagram and tell the candidate to work it out. Becuase thats real life. (and in real life you often don't even have a goddarned diagram).

In real life you have Google. I don't have CCNP Route knowledge (yet) but I guarantee you I could make multi area OSPF work in real life fairly quickly. Granted I have a lot of Cisco experience so that helps. The tests have to hit the details behind how and why it works IMO.

For me, the CCNA Composite was harder than any of the CCNP Voice exams I have done so far.

wintermute000

alucheni wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand the "no experience w/ cert" stigma. Traditional engineers certainly aren't required to have experience along with their engineering degree... why shouldn't networking folks get foundation first, and the job second? If we want the CCNP to be tougher and more sim-based, there should be practice sims out there that are reasonable preparation material towards this end.

I suppose I'm a bit raw because I was in a shop where this stigma existed (I got my CCNP sans-experience)... except, once they finally let me into the networking department (I was a desktop tech), I found that I had superior knowledge versus a handful of the non-certified 'senior' network engineers, all who had this precious experience I had heard about. Many of them didn't understand the data layer quite right and they would rely on server software to do their subnet designs. It was frustrating.

Don't get me wrong - experience is very important. I was clueless when it came to analysis tools, Unix, and all the various quirks of each model of switch and router. Also, my abilities increased significantly once I had a lab to play with. Still, if someone can pass the CCNP, I think it's reasonable to at least consider that person for increased responsibility.

Also, there are ways to intuit whether someone is smart without bombarding them with tech questions. Are they witty? Do they seem like a methodical sort of personality? Does their transcript show an A in calculus? Because of my personal experience, on the few interviews I've given, these are the things I tend to focus on. Experience is certainly great, but it's important not to keep out someone talented just because they're not in the club yet.

just my 2c,

Not sure what you're getting at. I said I hated the way the certs are examined. I didn't say squat about newbies or get into certs vs experience argument.

instant000

wintermute000 wrote: »

Not sure what you're getting at. I said I hated the way the certs are examined. I didn't say squat about newbies or get into certs vs experience argument.

In alucheni's defense:

It is possibly that alucheni quoted you by mistake. Having a single post, alucheni may not have familiarity with the forum.

NetworkVeteran

wintermute000 wrote: »

Apologies but I disagree strongly. Its good to assess test taking skills thats it.

Obviously, the industry and I strongly disagree with you, which is why we pay so much more for these certifications. You seem to know that since you followed along and got your CCNP and CCDP certifications.

And at the end of the day it should be all about how good you are at driving routers, not memorising timers and very specific details that you might need one incident in a hundred.

The thing is, it's cheaper/easier to find someone who can drive routers than someone who can understand, design, and troubleshoot complex networks. E.g., the guy who decides their business goals require LSPs from point A to point B transiting through point C, figures out the key weights/parameters, and can solve those "1/100" problems or solve the basic ones a.s.a.p. is paid more than the guys who "drive the routers" to implement that design and figure out routine issues at a routine pace. Not that they couldn't drive a router. I'm glad the intermediate certification strikes a balance between the hands-on and the theoretical.

Seriously how do you explain all the certified people who look at you blankly when you tell them to configure XYZ.

Braindumps? In my experience, the large majority of certified people know what their certifications cover. The interview process weeds out the exceptions, so I don't particularly worry about them, besides ensuring we have a strong interview process.

NetworkVeteran

Seriously how do you explain all the certified people who look at you blankly when you tell them to configure XYZ.

I just thought of another case. I have an acquaintance who likes to rant about what certified people can't do, such as "I hired a CCNA and he didn't even know how to configure.. route reflectors!" Usually, this ends with me pointing out that's not in the CCNA objectives (available online) and he should have actually hired someone with a different certification if he wanted them to already know that. These conversations tend to end with a surprised, "Oh." Not that he stops hiring CCNAs. He tends to have long timelines and so would usually rather train someone up than pay the premium for more certified folks.