Net+ or CCENT

NotQuiteCertified

Which one would be better as a starting point (I already have some in depth networking knowledge)

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

networker050184

If you plan on going for the CCENT at all you might as well skip the Net+.

joemysterio

I was contemplating the same thing... I have no networking knowledge but decided recently on doing CCENT instead. hopefully that works out for me.

DoubleNNs

I had no networking knowledge when I took my Net+ and it laid an awesome foundation for me. However, w/ previous networking knowledge, it makes sense to go right to the CCENT.

I do not personally regret taking the Net+, but I don't think it would have been that much harder to go straight to the CCENT and bypass the Net+.

Hatah

That seems to be the most popular theme on this site. Many people suggest to bypass the Net+, due to the CCENT weighing more, and that you could save the money you would have spent on the Net+ materials.

networker050184

DoubleNNs wrote: »

I had no networking knowledge when I took my Net+ and it laid an awesome foundation for me.

I think that is where the confusion is. Taking the Net+ exam didn't lay a foundation for you, learning the basics did. I don't think anyone would advise against learning the basics. That isn't the question at hand though.

DoubleNNs

You're right. The learning process involved w/ preparing for the Network+ laid the foundation for me. I read Mike Meyers and Exam Cram cover-to-cover, probably 1/3 of Todd Lammle's book, and watched every one of Professor Messer's videos. Additionally, I took an extensive amount of handwritten notes, which I reviewed, created digital flash cards, and answered hundreds of practice questions.

I'm in the same camp that sometimes makes suggestions to simply go thru the Network+ material and skip the actual exam. However, I'm positive I wouldn't have studied the material as extensively or thoroughly if I hadn't planned on taking the exam at the end. Whether or not that would have mattered in the long run for me personally is debatable.

That's why I often say that skipping the Net+ for the CCENT/CCNA saves both time and money, which can be put towards higher level certification/knowledge that would have more immediate ROI. However, I don't hide the fact that I myself spent the time and money on that piece of paper and let the reader know I don't regret the decision, because of my own situation at the time in which I took it.

nestech

NotQuiteCertified wrote: »

Which one would be better as a starting point (I already have some in depth networking knowledge)

get both of them...

antielvis

nestech wrote: »

get both of them...

What he said.

Network+ is the basics of networking, CCENT is about the basics of CISCO. While there is a lot of crossover they are different things. Network+ isn't overly difficult & you should have no trouble taking it. This assumes money is not an issue (testing costs).

Network+ is likely not going to get you a job, but don't see it that way. See it as a way to ensure you understand the foundation of something. Understanding networking will be beneficial when you get into more advanced CISCO stuff.

NotQuiteCertified

antielvis wrote: »

What he said.

Network+ is the basics of networking, CCENT is about the basics of CISCO. While there is a lot of crossover they are different things. Network+ isn't overly difficult & you should have no trouble taking it. This assumes money is not an issue (testing costs).

Network+ is likely not going to get you a job, but don't see it that way. See it as a way to ensure you understand the foundation of something. Understanding networking will be beneficial when you get into more advanced CISCO stuff.

That's the way I'm looking at it, but I've taken practice tests on here and mcmcse, and I get within 80-90% which I guess would demonstrate I have the foundations of networking already, so I just don't understand the reason for taking Net=, when it's almost double the cost for CCENT

DoubleNNs

I think you just answered your own question.

NotQuiteCertified

DoubleNNs wrote: »

I think you just answered your own question.

In that case, I have a question for you

How heavy is Subnetting on the CCENT

ande0255

Subnetting is really is once you read http://bafff.ru/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Mastering_Binary_Math_And_Subnetting.pdf <- This

This literally broke the ice forever on the mystery of subnetting, and I printed it off and read it at a chinese food buffet. There is no way simpler and more accurate than this, don't **** yourself with shortcuts or memorization tables.

NotQuiteCertified

ande0255 wrote: »

Subnetting is really is once you read http://bafff.ru/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Mastering_Binary_Math_And_Subnetting.pdf <- This

This literally broke the ice forever on the mystery of subnetting, and I printed it off and read it at a chinese food buffet. There is no way simpler and more accurate than this, don't **** yourself with shortcuts or memorization tables.

Thanks, reading it now and it seems very, very useful.

What books would you recommend, and other primary material

DoubleNNs

The CCENT is very subnetting heavy. But as Ande eluded to, once you get it down pat (regardless of what method you use) it really isn't too hard. Just do a few practice questions a day and you'll be able to do it in your head within seconds by the time you get to your test.

I took the old CCENT and I really enjoyed the CCENT for Dummies book, which I paired up w/ the Odom book, CBT Nuggets, and Packet Tracer/GNS3.
Unfortunately, the CCENT for Dummies book hasn't had an update for the new exam, so I'm not too sure if you'd wanna spend your time reading that. The Odom book HAS had an update, which I've read-thru recently. The Odom 100-101 book covers all the objective nicely. (However to be honest I liked his 640-822 3rd edition much better. Seems like he might have rushed his 100-101 book to get it out in time for people testing.)

Todd Lammle also has a wonderful book out, which I believe is geared nicely for people who already have a little bit of networking experience. It's much less dry than the other books.