: : Vadim Antonov <firstname.lastname@example.org>
: > On Wed, 22 May 2002, Kristian P. Jackson wrote:
: >> Perhaps a bachelors in network
: >> engineering is in order?
: I'm afraid there's not enough stuff one has to know to sucessfully
: "design" networks to fill more than one-semester course.
One should not design networks. Designing networks is not a
solitary activity. One should be part of a team that works
to design networks. That team should be made up of people
who know many and divers things.
You are not far off the mark, however: There's not enough stuff,
not contained in other coursework, to fill more than one-semester
course in networking. That is just to say that 'networking' is
not a fundamental discipline in the same way as math, or chemistry
might be but is an amalgam of intersecting skills and disciplines
that are easily found elsewhere. The engineers I admire and respect
all combine analytical skills (math), understanding of the
physical layer (electrical engineering, physics), financial
and resource allocation (economics), building fitout (mechanical
engineering, architecture) and computers (those things that
sit at the nodes of the networks...) AND they are constantly
striving to better understand the relationships between all
None of the engineers I respect and admire, came by the depth
and breadth of their skill not by walking a linear path but
rather by wandering hither and yon... cataloguing as they
went. School made sense for many, less so for others...
The pivotal advice I received was regarding a decision to
stay, or leave, the small college I was attending and to
get an engineering degree at a larger college. My physics
professor argued thusly: "You can get and engineering degree
and be an engineer, or you can get a physics degree and