I used Stallings a couple years ago. Cisco is not the basis of networking. It is the basis for TCP/IP.
-Grant On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidel...@meetinghouse.net> wrote: > Cisco as the basis of networking material? Does nobody use Comer, > Stallings, or Tannenbaum as basic texts anymore? > > Miles Fidelman > > > Mike Jones wrote: > >> I am a university student that has just completed the first term of >> the first year of a Computer Systems and Networks course. Apart from a >> really out of place MATH module that did trig but not binary, it has >> been reasonably well run so far. The binary is covered in a different >> module, just not maths. The worst part of the course is actually the >> core networking module, which is based on Cisco material. The cisco >> material is HORRIBLE! those awkward "book" page things with the stupid >> higherarchical menu. As for the content.. a scalable network is one >> you can add hosts to, so what's a non-scalable network? will the >> building collapse if i plug my laptop in? >> >> As I have been following NANOG for years I do notice a lot of mistakes >> or "over-simplifications" that show a clear distinction between the >> theory in the university books and the reality on nanog, and >> demonstrate the lecturers lack of real world exposure. As a simple >> example, in IPv4 the goal is to conserve IP addresses therefore on >> point to point links you use a /30 which only wastes 50% of the >> address space. In the real world - /31's? but a /31 is impossible I >> hear the lecturers say... >> >> The entire campus is not only IPv4-only, but on the wifi network they >> actually assign globally routable addresses, then block protocol 41, >> so windows configures broken 6to4! Working IPv6 connectivity would at >> least expose students to it a little and let them play with it... >> >> Amoung the things I have heard so far: MAC Addresses are unique, IP >> fragments should be blocked for security reasons, and the OSI model >> only has 7 layers to worry about. All theoretically correct. All >> wrong. >> - Mike Jones >> >> >> On 22 December 2014 at 09:13, Javier J <jav...@advancedmachines.us> >> wrote: >> >>> Dear NANOG Members, >>> >>> It has come to my attention, that higher learning institutions in North >>> America are doing our young future colleagues a disservice. >>> >>> I recently ran into a student of Southern New Hampshire University >>> enrolled >>> in the Networking/Telecom Management course and was shocked by what I >>> learned. >>> >>> Not only are they skimming over new technologies such as BGP, MPLS and >>> the >>> fundamentals of TCP/IP that run the internet and the networks of the >>> world, >>> they were focusing on ATM , Frame Relay and other technologies that are >>> on >>> their way out the door and will probably be extinct by the time this >>> student graduates. They are teaching classful routing and skimming over >>> CIDR. Is this indicative of the state of our education system as a whole? >>> How is it this student doesn't know about OSPF and has never heard of >>> RIP? >>> >>> If your network hardware is so old you need a crossover cable, it's time >>> to >>> upgrade. In this case, it’s time to upgrade our education system. >>> >>> I didn't write this email on the sole experience of my conversation with >>> one student, I wrote this email because I have noticed a pattern emerging >>> over the years with other university students at other schools across the >>> country. It’s just the countless times I have crossed paths with a young >>> IT >>> professional and was literally in shock listening to the things they were >>> being taught. Teaching old technologies instead of teaching what is >>> currently being used benefits no one. Teaching classful and skipping CIDR >>> is another thing that really gets my blood boiling. >>> >>> Are colleges teaching what an RFC is? Are colleges teaching what IPv6 is? >>> >>> What about unicast and multicast? I confirmed with one student half way >>> through their studies that they were not properly taught how DNS works, >>> and >>> had no clue what the term “root servers” meant. >>> >>> Am I crazy? Am I ranting? Doesn't this need to be addressed? …..and if >>> not >>> by us, then by whom? How can we fix this? >>> >> > > -- > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. > In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra > >
