Route?

JZegers

Is it just me, or does it seem like the Route material is way more straight forward than the gauntlet that is Switch?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

pitviper

I would have to agree – ROUTE certainly feels more “focused”

networker050184

I've always felt that routing in general was more straight forward than switching and its associated technologies.

gorebrush

networker050184 wrote: »

I've always felt that routing in general was more straight forward than switching and its associated technologies.

I concur

chmorin

I'm going to disagree. I remember back in my CCNA day's where I could configure a router to use RIP/Static but had no clue what even needed configuring on a switch. VLAN's confused me, and so did STP and a number of all of the other related technologies. But once I got a chance to sit down and really work on switching equipment, I found its environment much easier to follow.

Back when I studied for the BSCI exam I was working in a campus sized switching environment, and STILL didn't know squat about advanced switching. I studied for two months hard core watching CBT nuggets and Chris Bryant's videos, reading the study book, and creating lab's involving 8-10 routers to test. The technology configuration and implementation options confused the heck out of me. All of the separate timers and values each protocol use seemed so different and yet all achieve (almost) the same goal. So many values to memorize, and then you jump into the exam to get a question/sim that had that ONE subject you were weak in. Be it route redistribution for RIP into OSPF, Static routes into EIGRP, Area Sub, NSSA, or otherwise.

And after all of that, I would go to work and sit down in a switching environment I had never learned how to configure and suddenly switching just made sense.

I'll take a switching environment any day. I still plan on going back and getting my CCNP after my CCNP:V and I'll have a story to tell afterwards for sure

pitviper

Ah yes, but from a Cisco SWITCH exam perspective, were talking switching, first hop redundancy, wireless, voip/qos, network management and so on. Lots of gears to "switch" between as opposed to mostly routing and some IPv6.

chmorin

pitviper wrote: »

Ah yes, but from a Cisco SWITCH exam perspective, were talking switching, first hop redundancy, wireless, voip/qos, network management and so on. Lots of gears to "switch" between as opposed to mostly routing and some IPv6.

Except that 'mostly routing' is actually alot of things. But I'm looking at the exam blueprint for ROUTE and I'll be damned if it isn't half the size of BSCI. That's a shame.

burbankmarc

It looks like they stripped out the multicast, and IS-IS sections and added in some basics of VPN/GRE. Not too bad in my opinion, multicast probably should have stayed but I don't see the need in knowing IS-IS.

hermeszdata

burbankmarc wrote: »

It looks like they stripped out the multicast, and IS-IS sections and added in some basics of VPN/GRE. Not too bad in my opinion, multicast probably should have stayed but I don't see the need in knowing IS-IS.

That and every other statement seems to be PLAN!

JZegers

Also, CBT Nuggets for route is absolutely awesome. Can watch a section and then read the FLG and i feel that the nuggest covered every aspect. Much better on route than on switch

valen

I personally had a big conceptual gap regarding vlans that I didn't really get over until I saw them used in a large network. Routing was very straight forward by contrast.