New CCNA tracks - Wireless, Voice, Security

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

Kind of interesting, but I worry that it is too much of a specialization at a low level.

What are your guys thoughts?

http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2008...EATIVE=LINK1&REFERRING_SITE=CISCO.COMHOMEPAGE

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

I don't like it.
The Professional tracks differentiated between different technologies so I don't understand why the additional certs in the lower-level.

So the CCNA-Voice is the regular CCNA + 640-460 IIUC. Since this is specific to the Voice track I believe it should be covered in the CCVP. It almost seems like they wanted / needed to add additional exams but did want to inflate the actual Professional track.

 

looks like money grabbing to me! If you want to do CCVP you need to do CCNA Voice first... CCSP you need to do CCNA Security first.. couldnt they just count this towards the first Pro exam you take? Also have Cisco exam prices gone up?

 

I think it makes sense. It could very well be a money grab, but it seems like the new certifications will allow people to specialize at the associate level, which should only help them as they move up the certification ladder.

 

I get your point, but I see the associate level as beginner to Networking as a whole. By beginner I don't mean entry level into IT, but a foundation to Cisco specific networking (not general networking which is a prerquisite in my books).

I see the R/S; Voice; and Security as too detailed to be covered respectfully in an associate level. I like the professional tracks and the expert tracks, but this doesn't jive right with me. Maybe it will after I'm more used to it

 

For the past few years, Cisco's been pushing CCIE content down to the CCNP/VP/SP/IP levels, and pushing the CCNP content down to the CCNA levels. Thus, the current CCNP "ain't your daddy's CCNP" - it's much harder. So it was just a matter of time before the CCNA was "too full" to add anything new - it already covers so many concepts that, in truth, it's TOO broad. So where do you put all that content? In the CCNA: Security, CCNA: Wireless, and CCNA: Voice... and get the CCNA back to a more manageable content level. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

So now they've got exams for beginners to security, voice, and wireless. What's wrong with that? The stuff covered in the CCSP, CCVP, and CCNP exams are far, far harder than the basics, so without the Associate level security, voice, and wireless exams, there's a pretty big coverage gap.

My only suggestion would have been to call them the CCSA, CCVA, and CCWA. They're obviously wanting to leverage the visibility of the CCNA.

 

I thought that too!

I have to say my first thoughts were like sunn's and I just didn't like it as I saw the CCNA as "entry level" to Cisco networking.

But as BosonMichael has kindly pointed out, the content levels are getting pushed down and down and the CCNA was already a very broad qualification so I guess this makes perfect sense.

At least it will, if the CCNA level content is getting pushed down to CCENT.

Still though, we can't keep adding qualifications forever.

Interesting though.

The major problem as I see it lies within this quote -

The problem is not in disagreement - I agree completely! BUT how many others agree who have already got their certs ?

The architects in my place, one of which was one of the first CCIE's and one has held all of the Professional level certs really look down on the CCNA - Not in a snobby way, but you know, when they did it, or when they read over it - the content was nothing like it is now.

They were amazed I had been configuring OSPF and EIGRP etc as part of CCNA content.

This in my opinion subtracts from the value of the cert, and also leads employers to think they need a higher level of cert than is actually required.

Would be interested in hearing further opinions on the above.

Cheers,
Phil

 

On a seperate note.

With regards to the pre-requisites changing. I notice that you have e.g. until June 2009 to do the CCVP or you need to get the CCNA Voice as a pre-requisite.

Does this mean you to have completed all of the Voice exams by then ? What if you have done all of them bar one - would you need to do the CCNA Voice to continue ?

Confusing! - Well, to me anyway.

 

PPS

Yes the prices have gone up..

$250 US per CCNA exam or equivalent local currency !

 

More exams mean more money theres no question about that, but i think what they are trying to achive are more levels of expertese in specialised areas, as networking expands into so many areas or experteses nowadays (such as VOIP, wireless, also more need for tighter security (not that tight security wasnt needed just the attacks are more sophisticated, so become the defenses) that one cert per "level" isnt really enough to satisfy smbs or larger operations needs and the when it comes down to it, fundamentally the wage they want to pay someone, as usually looking at their cert level is a good indicator of how much they will command in the market (this is before they look at experience - the employment market is always about buzz words).

Simply put, more choices are needed for both the businesses and the techs, and I think its good they are providing them, except for my wallet lol .

 

I get that - and agree that the NA has become very board. However, the NA is not an entry-level cert. By making the CCNA-Voice; Security; and Wireless they are risking newbies coming in and picking up a voice qualification without any relevant experience.

Too be honest, I've started to come around. Although I'm still not really in favor of this, I'm glad they didn't add any new exams to the professional tracks. Doing 4-5 exams within 2-years can take a toll, so at least they seemed to understand that part of it.

 

I have been trying to understand that better. I think it does mean that. You pretty much have 1-year to finish any Professional track (besides R & S) or require an additional cert to get the CCNA-specialty.

In principle I don't mind that, but I think 1-year isn't fair to the people that might just have started. 18-months to 2-years would be more reasonable imo.

 

Well, that's why Cisco requires recertification every three years. Everything's harder. That said... you don't have to certify by taking the CCNA... you can take any 642-level exam. So, you are right: CCNP circa 2001 may not know that the CCNA has gotten harder... nor will employers, for now. But that information will eventually seep through to employers over time.

Cisco's positioning the CCNA right where they want it... not as an entry-level cert, but as a certification for network professionals who are starting to work with Cisco devices. In time, employers will understand that, and the value will increase.

 

You would need to get the entire certification by June 2009, or you'll need it as a prereq.

That said... if you can do the CCVP, the CCNA voice shouldn't be difficult at all. The only real damage is the exam fee.

 

What's to stop them from picking up a voice qualification without any relevant experience now? It happens. This won't change that, really.

You don't have to do 4-5 exams within two years.

 

In the professional tracks an exam is only valid for 2-yrs in counting towards the certification. In other words, if I do the CCVP-QoS exam, I should be completing the remaining CCVP exams within 24-months; otherwise I'll have to write the QoS again.

Is this not true?
I'll try to find the blurb to support this, but I'm sure this is correct.

 

Okay, there's nothing in the Syllabus that states how long an exam is valid for. Furthermore, a Cisco discussion seems to indicate that the exams are valid until it's actually retired (and I think they usually give you a year of notice for that).

 

Yeah I think it's valid until they're retired.

Thanks for the discussion anyway guys, some interesting points.

Michael - I know you're right really, but then in some ways it annoys me. We have a CCIE in my place (as I said - one of the first) he has never re-certified, but still walks around with the prestigious talk of being a CCIE - I bet in reality he wouldn't be able to do it now, not without some damn hard work to swot up anyway.

I'm not trying to take away from the fact he very successful and clever but still, it's frustrating. Ah well, that's the way the cookie crumbles.

I just hope I pass on Tuesday, I'm feeling so motivated with my studies these days, and I genuinely have a passion for this field, something I haven't had in a career for years - here's to hoping!

 

Looking at my account in the Cisco Certifications Tracking System, I'm seeing exams on there that still count towards my certification that are long since retired. For example, my CCSP progress shows that I've completed the Security exam requirements by passing MCNS (640-100) - an exam that is FIVE generations old (made obsolete by MCNS 640-442, SECUR 642-501, SNRS 642-502, and SNRS 642-503). Yes, Cisco has publicly stated that you need to pass all of the exams in a track within a certain time frame... but according to their system, my MCNS is still valid.