CCIE at 50k: Software Defined? Or Hardware Driven?


Congratulations to Ryan Booth (@That1Guy_15) on becoming CCIE #50117. It’s a huge accomplishment for him and the networking community. Ryan has put in a lot of study time so this is just the payoff for hard work and a job well done. Ryan has done something many dream of and few can achieve. But where is the CCIE program today? And where will it be in the future?

Who Wants To Be A CCIE?

A lot of virtual ink has been committed to opinions in the past couple of years about how the CCIE is become increasingly irrelevant in a world of software defined DevOps focused non-traditional networking teams. It has been said that the CCIE doesn’t teach modern networking concepts like programming or building networks in a world with no CLI access. While this is all true, I don’t think it diminishes the value of getting a CCIE.

The CCIE has never been about building a modern network. It has never been focused on creating anything other than a medium-sized enterprise network in the case of the routing and switching exam. It is not a test of best practices or of greenfield deployment scenarios. Instead, it has been a test of interoperability with an exisiting architecture. It tests the ability of the candidate to add devices and protocols to a stable existing network.

Other flavors of the CCIE test over different protocols or technologies, but the idea is still the same. The only one that even comes close to requiring programming is the CCIE Collaboration, which tests over the ability to customize Cisco Contact Center scripts. Otherwise, each test focuses on technology implementation and not architecture or operation.

Current logic dictates that people don’t want to take the CCIE because it doesn’t teach programming or API interaction. Yet candidates are showing up in droves. It’s almost as if the networks we have today are going to need to be maintained and built out over the coming years. These are the kinds of tasks that are well suited to a support-focused certification like the CCIE. The ideal CCIE candidate isn’t using Vagrant and Chef in a lab somewhere. They’re muddling through OSPF to RIP distribution somewhere in the dark corners of a network that got welded on after an acquisition.

Is Everyone A CCIE?

One thing I have noticed about the CCIE is the fact the number climb seems to have leveled off. It’s not the rapid explosion of certifications that it has been in the past, nor is it the eventual cliff of increased difficulty. Things seem to be marching more toward steady growth. I don’t know how much of that can be attributed to factors like the Cisco official CCIE training program or the upgrade to version 5 almost two years ago.

Lots of CCIEs doesn’t necessarily mean that the test has lost meaning. Microsoft had several thousand MCSEs by the time the certification became a punchline to countless call center jokes. Novell had a virtual army of Certified NetWare Engineers (CNEs) before software changes locked many of them into CNE 5 or CNE 6. Having a lot of certified individuals doesn’t devalue the certificaiton. It’s what people do with it that creates the reputation. Ask and Novell Certififed Directory Engineer (CDE) about the reputation garnered by a test and they can give you a lesson in hard exams that breed bright engineers.

Does that mean that we should brace ourselves for even more CCIEs in the future? It likely won’t be as bad as has been imagined. The written exam for version 5 has pointed out to me that Cisco is going to start closing ranks around technologies in the near future. The written exam serves as a testing ground for potential new topics on the exam. MPLS was a written topic long before it became a potential lab exam topic. The current written exam is full of technologies that make me think Cisco is starting to put more emphasis on the Cisco and less on the Internetworking in CCIE.

Cisco wants to have a legion of certified individuals that think about Cisco technology benefits. That’s why we’re starting to see a shift toward things like DMVPN and GETVPN in testing. In place of industry standard protocols, we get the Cisco improved versions. This locks candidates into the Cisco method of thinking and ensures that their go-to solutions will include some form of proprietary technology.

If this shift in thinking is really the start of the new way of certification testing, I worry for the future of the CCIE. Not because there are 50,000 CCIEs, but because the new inductees into the CCIE group will be focused on creating islands of Cisco in the sea of interoperable data center networks. That’s good for Cisco’s bottom line, but bad for the reputation of the CCIE. Could you imagine what would happen if a CCIE walked in and told you they couldn’t fix your MPLS VPN configuration issues because “I only know how to work on DMVPN”?

Tom’s Take

Every time someone I know passes the CCIE it makes me happy that they’ve completed a rigorous exam testing process. It tells me this person knows how to follow the lab instructions to create an interoperable enterprise network based on constraints. It also tells me that this person knows how to study material and doesn’t give up. Those are the kinds of people I would want in my networking group.

CCIEs are the perfect people to learn more modern network techniques like programmability and SDN. Not because they learned how to do it on their test. But because they are the kinds of people that learn well and will apply everything they have to picking up a new concept. But it needs to be pointed out here that Cisco must foster that kind of interoperable learning experience with CCIEs. Focusing too heavily on proprietary solutions to help create an army of unknowing Cisco SEs in the field will only serve to hurt Cisco in the future when that group of certified individuals must learn to work in the world of networking post-SD.


The Score Is High. Who’s Holding On?


If you haven’t had the chance to read Jeff Fry’s treatise on why the CCIE written should be dropped, do it now. He raises some very valid points about relevancy and continuing education and how the written exam is approaching irrelvancy as a prerequisite for lab candidates. I’d like to approach another aspect of this whole puzzle, namely the growing need to get that extra edge to pass the cut score.

Cuts Like A Knife

Every standardized IT test has a cut score, or the minimum necessary score required to pass. There is a surprising amount of work that goes into calculating a cut score for a standardized test. Too low and you end up with unqualified candidates being certified. Too high and you have a certification level that no one can attain.

The average cut score for a given exam level tends to rise as time goes on. This has a lot to do with the increasing depth of potential candidates as well as the growing average of scores from those candidates. Raising the score with each revision of the test guarantees you have the best possible group representing that certification. It’s like having your entire group be members of the honor roll.

A high cut score ensures that unqualified personnel are washed out of the program quickly. If you take a test with a cut score of 800 and you score a 500, you quickly know that you need to study quite a bit more before you’re ready to attempt the exam again. You might even say to yourself that you don’t know the material in any kind of depth to continue your quest for certification.

What happens if you’re just below the cut score? If you miss the mark by one question or less? How much more studying can you do? What else do you need to know? Sure, you can look at the exam and realize that there are many, many more questions you can answer correctly to hit the right score. But what if the passing score is absurdly high?

Horseshoes and Hand Grenades

I believe the largest consumer of purloined test questions is not the candidate that is completely clueless about a subject. Instead, the largest market of these types of services is the professional that has either missed the mark by a small margin or is afraid they will not pass even after hours of exhaustive study.

Rising cut scores lead to panic during exams. Why was a 790 good enough last time but now I need an 850 to pass? It’s easy to start worrying that your final score may fall in between that gray area that will leave lacking on the latest attempt. What happens if you miss the mark with all of the knowlege that you have obtained?

Those are the kinds of outcomes that drive people to invest in “test aids”. The lure is very compelling. Given the choice between failing an exam that costs $400 or spending a quarter of that to have a peek at what might be on the test, what is stopping the average test taker besides morality? What if your job depended on passing that exam? Now that multi-hundred dollar exam becomes a multi-thousand dollar decision.

Now we’re not talking about a particular candidate’s desire to fleece a potential employer or customer about knowledge. We’re talking about good old fashioned fear. Fear of failure. Fear of embarassement. Fear of losing your livelyhood because of a test. And that fear is what drives people to break the rules to ensure success.

Cut Us Some Slack

The solution to this issue is complicated. How can you ensure the integrity of a testing program? Worse yet, how can you stem the rising tide of improper behavior when it comes to testing?

The first thing is to realize what drives this behavior. Should a test like the CCIE written have higher and higher cut scores to eliminate illicit behavior? Is that really the issue here? Or is it more about the rising cut score itself causing a feedback loop that drives the behavior?

Companies need to take a hard look at their testing programs to understand what is going on with candidates. Are people missing the mark widely? Or are they coming very close without passing? Are the passing scores in the 99th percentile? Or barely above the mark? Adjustments in the cut score should happen both up and down.

It’s easy to look at testing groups and say, “If you just stuided a bit harder, you’d hit this impossibly high mark.” It’s also very easy to look at scores and say, “We see that many of you are missing the mark by less than ten points. Let’s lower that and see how things go from here.”

Certification programs are very worried about diluting the pool of certified candidates. But is having more members of the group with scores within a question or two of passing preferable to having a group with absurdly high passing scores thanks to outside help?

Tom’s Take

I’ve taken exams with a 100% cut score. It’s infuriating to think that even a single wrong answer could cost you an entire exam. It’s even worse if you are financing the cost of your exam on your own. Fear of missing that mark can drive people to do lots of crazy things.

I’m not going to say that companies like Cisco need to lower the cut scores of exams to unrealistically low levels. That would cheapen the certifications that people have already earned. What needs to happen is that Cisco and other certification bodies need to learn what they are trying to accomplish with their programs and adjust all the parameters of the tests to accomplish those goals.

Perhaps raising the cut scores to more than 900 points isn’t the answer. Maybe instead more complex questions or more hands-on simulations are required to better test the knowledge of the candidates. These are better solutions that take time and research. They aren’t the false panacea of raising the passing score. The rising tide can’t be fixed by making the buoys float just a little higher.


CCNA Data Center on vBrownBag

vbrownbagSometimes when I’m writing blog posts, I forget how important it is to start off on the right foot.  For a lot of networking people just starting out, discussions about advanced SDN topics and new theories can seem overwhelming when you’re trying to figure out things like subnetting or even what a switch really is.  While I don’t write about entry level topics often, I had the good fortune recently to talk about them on the vBrownBag podcast.

For those that may not be familiar, vBrownBag is a great series that goes into depth about a number of technology topics.  Historically, vBrownBag has been focused on virtualization topics.  Now, with the advent of virtual networking become more integrated into virtualization the vBrownBag organizers asked me if I’d be willing to jump on and talk about the CCNA Data Center.  Of course I took the opportunity to lend my voice to what will hopefully be the start of some promising data center networking careers.

These are the two videos I recorded.  The vBrownBag is usually a one-hour show.  I somehow managed to go an hour and half on both.  I realized there is just so much knowledge that goes into these certifications that I couldn’t do it all even if I had six hours.

Also, in the midst of my preparation, I found a few resources that I wanted to share with the community for them to get the most out of the experience.

Chris Wahl’s CCNA DC course from PluralSight – This is worth the time and investment for sure.  It covers DCICN in good depth, and his work with NX-OS is very handy if you’ve never seen it before.

Todd Lamle’s NX-OS Simulator – If you can’t get rack time on a real Nexus, this is pretty close to the real thing.  You should check it out even if only to get familiar with the NX-OS CLI.

NX-OS and Nexus Switching, 2nd Edition – This is more for post-grad work.  Ron Fuller (@CCIE5851) helped write the definitive guide to NX-OS.  If you are going to work on Nexus gear, you need a copy of this handy. Be sure to use the code “NETNERD” to get it for 30% off!


Tom’s Take

Never forget where you started.  The advanced topics we discuss take a lot for granted in the basic knowledge department.  Always be sure to give a little back to the community in that regard.  The network engineer you help shepherd today may end up being the one that saves your job in the future.  Take the time to show people the ropes.  Otherwise you’ll end up hanging yourself.

Get a CCIE, Don’t Be A CCIE

Getting a CCIE is considered to be the pinnacle of a person’s networking career.  It is the culmination of hundreds (if not thousands) of hours of study.  People pass the lab and celebrate with the relief that can only come from completing a milestone in life.  But it’s important for newly-minted CCIEs to realize that getting your number doesn’t mean you obtained hubris with it.

A great article that talks about something similar comes from Hunter Walk.  It’s Fine To Get an MBA, But Don’t Be An MBA shows many of the things I’m talking about.  With the MBA, it’s a bit different.  The MBA is a pure book learning environment with very little practical experience.  The CCIE is a totally practical exam that requires demonstration of knowledge.  However, both of these things share something in common.  People get very hung up on the knowledge from the certification and forget to keep an open mind about other ideas.  In essence, someone that is “Being a CCIE” is using their certification incorrectly.

Here are some points:

Get A CCIE to further your knowledge about networking and learn how system work. Don’t Be A CCIE and think that you’ve learned everything there is to know about networking.

Get A CCIE and work with your coworkers and peers to solve problems.  Don’t Be A CCIE and ignore everyone because you think you’re smarter than they are.

Get A CCIE and contribute to the community with knowledge and experience.  Don’t Be A CCIE and refuse to share because you can’t be bothered.

Get A CCIE and help your company to take on bigger and better networking projects.  Don’t Be A CCIE and assume you are indispensable.

Get A CCIE because you want to.  Don’t Be A CCIE and assume you’ve always been one.

A CCIE doesn’t change who you are.  It just serves to show people how dedicated you can be.  Don’t let five little numbers turn you into a bully or a know-it-all.  Realize you still have much to learn.  Understand that your position is now at the forefront of where networking is going, not where it has been.  When you know that being a CCIE is more than just a piece of paper, then you will have truly gotten your CCIE.

CCIE Version 5: Out With The Old

Cisco announced this week that they are upgrading the venerable CCIE certification to version five.  It’s been about three years since Cisco last refreshed the exam and several thousand people have gotten their digits.  However, technology marches on.  Cisco talked to several subject matter experts (SMEs) and decided that some changes were in order.  Here are a few of the ones that I found the most interesting.

CCIEv5 Lab Schedule

Time Is On My Side

The v5 lab exam has two pacing changes that reflect reality a bit better.  The first is the ability to take some extra time on the troubleshooting section.  One of my biggest peeves about the TS section was the hard 2-hour time limit.  One of my failing attempts had me right on the verge of solving an issue when the time limit slammed shut on me.  If I only had five more minutes, I could have solved that problem.  Now, I can take those five minutes.

The TS section has an available 30 minute overflow window that can be used to extend your time.  Be aware that time has to come from somewhere, since the overall exam is still eight hours.  You’re borrowing time from the configuration section.  Be sure you aren’t doing yourself a disservice at the beginning.  In many cases, the candidates know the lab config cold.  It’s the troubleshooting the need a little more time with.  This is a welcome change in my eyes.


The biggest addition is the new 30-minute Diagnostic section.  Rather than focusing on problem solving, this section is more about problem determination.  There’s no CLI.  Only a set of artifacts from a system with a problem: emails, log files, etc.  The idea is that the CCIE candidate should be an expert at figuring out what is wrong, not just how to fix it.  This is more in line with the troubleshooting sections in the Voice and Security labs.  Parsing log files for errors is a much larger part of my time than implementing routing.  Teaching candidates what to look for will prevent problems in the future with newly minted CCIEs that can diagnose issues in front of customers.

Some are wondering if the Diagnostic section is going to be the new “weed out” addition, like the Open Ended Questions (OEQs) from v3 and early v4.  I see the Diagnostic section as an attempt to temper the CCIE with more real world needs.  While the exam has never been a test of ideal design, knowing how to fix a non-ideal design when problems occur is important.  Knowing how to find out what’s screwed up is the first step.  It’s high time people learned how to do that.

Be Careful What You Wish For

The CCIE v5 is seeing a lot of technology changes.  The written exam is getting a new section, Network Principles.  This serves to refocus candidates away from Cisco specific solutions and more toward making sure they are experts in networking.  There’s a lot of opportunity to reinforce networking here and not idle trivia about config minimums and maximums.  Let’s hope this pays off.

The content of the written is also being updated.  Cisco is going to make sure candidates know the difference between IOS and IOS XE.  Cisco Express Forwarding is going to get a focus, as is ISIS (again).  Given that ISIS is important in TRILL this could be an indication of where FabricPath development is headed.  The written is also getting more IPv6 topics.  I’ll cover IPv6 in just a bit.

The biggest change in content is the complete removal of frame relay.  It’s been banished to the same pile as ATM and ISDN.  No written, no lab.  In it’s place, we get Dynamic Multipoint VPN (DMVPN).  I’ve talked about why Frame Relay is on the lab before.  People still complained about it.  Now, you get your wish.  DMVPN with OSPF serves the same purpose as Frame Relay with OSPF.  It’s all about Stupid Router Tricks.  Using OSPF with DMVPN requires use of mGRE, which is a Non-Broadcast Multi-Access (NBMA) network.  Just like Frame Relay.  The fact that almost every guide today recommends you use EIGRP with DMVPN should tell you how hard it is to do.  And now you’re forced to use OSPF to simulate NBMA instead of Frame Relay.  Hope all you candidates are happy now.


The lab is also 100% virtual now.  No physical equipment in either the TS or lab config sections.  This is a big change.  Cisco wants to reduce the amount of equipment that needs to be physically present to build a lab.  They also want to be able to offer the lab in more places than San Jose and RTP.  Now, with everything being software, they could offer the lab at any secured PearsonVUE testing center.  They’ve tried in the past, but the access requirements caused some disaster.  Now, it’s all delivered in a browser window.  This will make remote labs possible.  I can see a huge expansion of the testing sites around the time of the launch.

This also means that hardware-specific questions are out.  Like layer 2 QoS on switches.  The last reason to have a physical switch (WRR and SRR queueing) is gone.  Now, all you are going to get quizzed on is software functionality.  Which probably means the loss of a few easy points.  With the removal of Frame Relay and L2 QoS, I bet that services section of the lab is going to be really fun now.

IPv6 Is Real

Now, for my favorite part.  The JNCIE has had a robust IPv6 section for years.  All routing protocols need to be configured for IPv4 and IPv6.  The CCIE has always had a separate IPv6 section.  Not any more.  Going forward in version 5, all routing tasks will be configured for v4 and v6.  Given that RIPng has been retired to the written exam only (finally), it’s a safe bet that you’re going to love working with OSPFv3 and EIGRP for IPv6.

I think it’s great that Cisco has finally caught up to the reality of the world.  If CCIEs are well versed in IPv6, we should start seeing adoption numbers rise significantly.  Ensuring that engineers know to configure v4 and v6 simultaneously means dual stack is going to be the preferred transition method.  The only IPv6-related thing that worries me is the inclusion of an item on the written exam: IPv6 Network Address Translation.  You all know I’m a huge fan of NAT.  Especially NAT66, which is what I’ve been told will be the tested knowledge.

Um, why?!? 

You’ve removed RIPng to the trivia section.  You collapsed multicast into the main routing portions.  You’re moving forward with IPv6 and making it a critical topic on the test.  And now you’re dredging up NAT?!? We don’t NAT IPv6.  Especially to another IPv6 address.  Unique Local Addresses (ULA) is about the only thing I could see using NAT66.  Ed Horley (@EHorley) thinks it’s a bad idea.  Ivan Pepelnjak (@IOSHints) doesn’t think fondly of it either, but admits it may have a use in SMBs.  And you want CCIEs and enterprise network engineers to understand it?  Why not use LISP instead?  Or maybe a better network design for enterprises that doesn’t need NAT66?  Next time you need an IPv6 SME to tell you how bad this idea is, call me.  I’ve got a list of people.

Tom’s Take

I’m glad to see the CCIE update.  Getting rid of Frame Relay and adding more IPv6 is a great thing.  I’m curious to see how the Diagnostic section will play out.  The flexible time for the TS section is way overdue.  The CCIE v5 looks to be pretty solid on paper.  People are going to start complaining about DMVPN.  Or the lack of SDN-related content.  Or the fact that EIGRP is still tested.  But overall, this update should carry the CCIE far enough into the future that we’ll see CCIE 60,000 before it’s refreshed again.

More CCIE v5 Coverage:

Bob McCouch (@BobMcCouch) – Some Thoughts on CCIE R&S v5

Anthony Burke (@Pandom_) – Cisco CCIE v5

Daniel Dib (@DanielDibSWE) – RS v5 – My Thoughts

INE – CCIE R&S Version 5 Updates Now Official

IPExpert – The CCIE Routing and Switching (R&S) 5.0 Lab Is FINALLY Here!

CPE Credits for CCIE Recertification


Every year at Cisco Live the CCIE attendees who are also NetVets get a special reception with John Chambers where they can ask one question of him (time permitting).  I’ve had hit-or-miss success with this in the past so I wanted to think hard about a question that affected CCIEs the world over and could advance the program.  When I finally did ask my question, no only was it met with little acclaim but some folks actually argued against my proposal.  At that moment, I figured it was time to write a blog post about it.

I think the CCIE needs to adopt a Continuing Professional Education (CPE) route for recertification.

I can hear many of you out there now jeering me and saying that it’s a dumb idea.  Hear me out first before you totally dismiss the idea.

Many respected organizations that issue credentials have a program that records CPEs in lieu of retaking certification exams.  ISACA, (ISC)^2, and even the American Bar Assoication use continuing education programs as a way of recertifying their members.  If so many programs use them, what is the advantage?

CPEs ensure that certification holders are staying current with trends in technology.  It forces certified individuals to keep up with new advances and be on top of the game.  It rewards those that spend time researching and learning.  It provides a method of ensuring that a large percentage of the members are able to understand where technology is headed in the future.

There seems to be some hesitation on the part of CCIEs in this regard.  Many in the NetVet reception told me outright I was crazy for thinking such a thing.  They say that the only real measure of recertification is taking the written test.  CCIEs have a blueprint that they need to know and they is how we know what a CCIE is.  CCIEs need to know spanning tree and OSPF and QoS.

Let’s take that as a given.  CCIEs need to know certain things.  Does that mean I’m not a real CCIE because I don’t know ATM, ISDN, or X.25?  These were things that have appeared on previous written exams and labs in the past.  Why do we not learn them now?  What happened to those technologies to move them out of the limelight and relegate them to the same pile that we find token ring and ARCnet?  Technology advances every day.  Things that we used to run years ago are now as foreign to us as steam power and pyramid construction.

If the only true test of a CCIE is to recertify on things they already know, why not make them take the lab exam every two years to recertify?  Why draw the line at simple multiple choice guessing?  Make them show the world that they know what they’re doing.  We could drop the price of the lab for recertification.  We could offer recert labs in other locations via the remote CCIE lab technology to ensure that people don’t need to travel across the globe to retake a test.  Let’s put some teeth in the CCIE by making it a “real” practical exam.

Of course, the lab recert example is silly and a bit much.  Why do we say that multiple choice exams should count?  Probably because they are easy to administer and grade.  We are so focused on ensuring that CCIEs retrain on the same subjects over and over again that we are blind to the opportunity to make CCIEs the point of the spear when it comes to driving new technology adoption.

CCIE lab revamps don’t come along every six months.  They take years of examination and testing to ensure that the whole process integrates properly.  In the fourth version of the CCIE lab blueprint, MPLS appeared for the first time as a lab topic.  It took years of adoption in the wider enterprise community to show that MPLS was important to all networkers and not just service provider engineers.  The irony is that MPLS appears in the blueprint right alongside Frame Relay, a technology which MPLS is rapidly displacing.  We are still testing on a twenty-year-old technology because it represents so much of a networker’s life as it is ripped out and replaced with better protocols.

Where’s the CCIE SDN? Why are emerging technologies so underrepresented in the CCIE?  One could argue that new tech needs time to become adopted and tested before it can be a valid topic.  But who does that testing and adoption?  CCIEs?  CCNPs? Unwitting CCNAs who have this thrust upon them because the CIO saw a killer SDN presentation and decided that he needed it right now!  The truth is somewhere in the middle, I think.

Rather than making CCIEs stop what they are working over every 18 months to read up and remember how 802.1d spanning tree functions or how to configure an NBMA OSPF-over-frame-relay link, why not reward them for investigating and proofing new technology like TRILL or OpenFlow?  Let the research time count for something.  The fastest way to stagnate a certification program is to force it in upon itself and only test on the same things year after year.  I said as much in a previous CCIE post which in many ways was the genesis of my question (and this post).  If CCIEs know the only advantage of studying new technology is gaining a leg up with the CxO comes down to ask how network function virtualization is going to benefit the company then that’s not much of an advantage.

CPEs can be anything.  Reading an article.  Listening to a webcast.  Preparing a presentation.  Volunteering at a community college.  Even attending Cisco Live, which I have been informed was once a requirement of CCIE recertification.  CPEs don’t have to be hard.  They have to show that CCIEs are keeping up with what’s happening with modern networking.  That stands in contrast to reading the CCIE Certification Guide for the fourth or fifth time and perusing 3-digit RFCs for technology that was developed during the Reagan administration.

I’m not suggesting that the CPE program totally replace the test.  In fact, I think those tests could be complementary.  Let CPEs recertify just the CCIE exam.  The written test could still recertify all the existing CCNA/CCNP level certifications.  Let the written stand as an option for those that can’t amass the needed number of CPE credits in the recertification period.  (ISC)^2 does this as do many others.  I see no reason why it can’t work for the CCIE.

There’s also the call of fraud and abuse of the system.  In any honor system there will be fraud and abuse.  People will do whatever they can to take advantage of any perceived weakness to gain advantage.  Similarly to (ISC)^2, an audit system could be implemented to flag questionable submissions and random ones as well to ensure that the certified folks are on the up and up.  As of July 1, 2013 there are almost 90,000 CISSPs in the world.  Somehow (ISC)^2 can manage to audit all of those CPE submissions.  I’m sure that Cisco can find a way to do it as well.

Tom’s Take

People aren’t going to like my suggestion.  I’ve already heard as much.  I think that rewarding those that show initiative and learn all they can is a valuable option.  I want a legion of smart, capable individuals vetting new technology and keeping the networking world one step into the future.  If that means reworking the existing certification program a bit, so be it.  I’d rather the CCIE be on the cutting edge of things rather than be a laggard that is disrespected for having its head stuck in the sand.

If you disagree with me or have a better suggestion, I implore you leave a comment to that affect.  I want to really understand what the community thinks about this.

Poaching CCIEs


During the CCIE Netvet Reception at Cisco Live 2013, a curious question came up during our Q&A session with CEO John Chambers. Paul Borghese asked if it was time for the partner restriction on CCIE tenure to be lifted in order to increase the value of a CCIE in the larger market. For those not familiar, when a CCIE is hired by a Cisco partner, they need to attach their number to the company in order for the company to receive the benefits of having hired a CCIE. Right now, that means counting toward the CCIE threshold for Silver and Gold status. When a CCIE leaves the the first company and moves to another partner their number stays associated with the original company for one year and cannot be counted with the new company until the expiration of that year.

There are a multitude of reasons why that might be the case. It encourages companies to pay for CCIE training and certification if the company knows that the newly-minted CCIE will be sticking around for at least a year past their departure. It also provides a lifeline to a Cisco partner in the event a CCIE decides to move on. By keeping the number attached to the company for a specific time period, the original company has the time necessary to hire or train new resources to take over for the departed CCIE’s job role. If the original partner is up for any contracts or RFPs that require a CCIE on staff, that grace period could be the difference between picking up or losing that contract.

As indicated above, Paul asked if maybe that policy needed to change. In his mind, the restriction of the CCIE number was causing CCIEs to stay at their current companies because their inability to move their number to the new company in a timely manner made them less valuable. I know now that the question came on behalf of Eman Conde, the CCIE Agent, who is very active in making sure the rights and privileges of CCIEs everywhere are well represented. I remember meeting Eman for the first time back at Cisco Live 2008 at an IPExpert party, long before I was a CCIE. In that time, Eman has worked very hard to make sure that CCIEs are well represented in the job market.  It is also in Eman’s best interests to ensure that CCIEs can move freely between companies without restriction.

My biggest fear is that removing the one-year association restriction for Cisco Partners will cause partners to stop funding CCIE development.  I was very fortunate to have my employer pay the entire cost of my CCIE from beginning to end.  In return, I agreed in principle to stay with them for a period of time and not seek employment from anyone else.  There was no agreement in place.  There was no contract.  Just a handshake.  Even after I left to go work with Gestalt IT, my number is locked to them for the next year.  This doesn’t really bother me.  It does make them feel better about moving to a competitor.  What would happen if I could move my number freely to the next business without penalty?

Could you imagine a world where CCIEs were being paid top dollar to work at a company not for their knowledge but because it was cheaper to buy CCIEs that it was to build them?  Think of a sports team that doesn’t have a good minor league system but instead buys their talent for absurd amounts of money.  If you had pictures of the New York Yankees in your head, you probably aren’t far removed from my line of thinking.  When the only value of a CCIE is associating the number to your company then you’ve missed the whole point of the program.

CCIEs are more valuable than their number.  With the exception of the Gold/Silver partner status their number is virtually useless.  What is more important is the partner specializations they can bring it.  My CCIE was pointless to my old employer since I was the only one.  What was a greater boon was all the partner certifications that I brought for unified communications, UCS implementation, and even project management.  Those certifications aren’t bound to a company.  In fact, I would probably be more marketable by going to a small partner with one CCIE or going to a silver partner with 3 CCIEs and telling them that I can bring in new lines of partner business while they are waiting for my number to clear escrow.  The smart partners will realize the advantage and hire me on and wait.  Only an impatient partner that wants to build a gold-level practice today would want to avoid number lock-in.

I don’t think we need to worry about removing the CCIE association restriction right now.  It serves to entice partners to fund CCIEs without worrying about them moving on as soon as they get certified.  Termination results in the number being freed up upon mutual agreement.  Most CCIEs that I’ve heard of that left their jobs soon after certification did it because their company told them they can’t afford to pay a CCIE.  Forcing small employers to let CCIEs walk away to bigger competitors with no penalty will prevent them from funding any more CCIE training.  They’ll say, “If the big partners want CCIEs so badly that they’ll pay bounties then let the big partners do all the training too.”  I don’t even think an employer non-compete would fix the issue as those aren’t enforceable in many states.  I think the program exists the way it does for a reason.  With all due deference to Eman and Paul, I don’t think we’ve reached the point where CCIE free agency is ready for prime time.