Well... to be accurate, and just a tad pedantic, the basis for TCP/IP is:
"A Protocol for Packet Network Intercommunication," Vinton G. Cerf &
Robert E. Kahn, IEEE Trans on Comms, Vol Com-22, No 5 May 1974
Miles Fidelman
Grant Ridder wrote:
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 <mailto: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
<mailto: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
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
