From: Chuah Eng Wee (chuahew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Aug 12 1999 - 14:18:06 GMT-3
Jeremy,
I have not taken the labs b4. I will be more careful in future when posting
questions.
I just got this pile of notes from a colleague. I don't know if this is the
actual lab scenarios. Thanks for letting everybody know.
In my personal opinion, I just find it difficult to draw a line between
what to discuss and what not to. Actually, I just feel that any kinds of
interesting scenarios can be discussed. If u know that this is the actual
CCIE scenarios, u can either choose to answer or don't answer the question
at all. FOr those who has not taken the exam, they will not know if it is
the actual scenario. SO they will treat it as a form of discussion.
OK, let's get back to serious work...
ENg Wee
At 03:45 PM 8/12/99 +0100, Jeremy Thompson wrote:
>Eng -
>
>Actually, this scenario is not from a practice lab - it's a question from
one of
>the actual tests (I've seen a few other people post similar questions from
>actual exams and pretend that they are from "practice" scenarios - do you
think
>those of us who have actually passed the test AREN'T GOING TO NOTICE?).
>Fortunately, whoever is so intent on violating their NDA is apparently not
>capable of remembering the questions properly. As written here, I don't
believe
>this is possible. The actual question on the test is definitely solvable,
but of
>course I can't tell you either the question or the answer. So, don't bang
your
>head against a brick wall over this one. Rest assured, if you truly
understand
>DLSw+, the scenarios on the exam will not pose a problem for you. And be
careful
>about posting questions like this in public forums. Cisco takes the NDA
quite
>seriously, as do most of the people (like myself) who have worked VERY
hard to
>obtain the CCIE and don't want to see it watered down by people who simply
have
>good memories. When you obtain your CCIE, you will understand why this is so
>irritating.
>
>Jeremy Thompson
>CCIE 4951
>
>> From: Chuah Eng Wee [SMTP:chuahew@cyberway.com.sg]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 6:25 AM
>> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>> Cc: chuahew@cyberway.com.sg
>> Subject: DLSW interesting scenario
>>
>> Hi Pple,
>>
>> Here is an interesting scenario I got from a practice lab.
>>
>> e0 s0 s0 s1 s0 e0
>> ---[r1]--------------[r2]-----------------[r3]-----
>> |
>> |e0
>> Task 1
>> configure such that host at [r2] e0 can access host at [r3] e0. The answer
>> is quite obvious.
>>
>>
>> Task 2 (this is the tricky one)
>> configure [r1] such that host at [r2] and [r3] can access host at [r1].
>> Only ONE peer connection is allowed. Border peer command is not allowed.
>>
>>
>> The initial thot I have is to configure [r2] as border peer and then
>> both r1 and r3 will peer with the border peer. But this will
>> violate the rules becos no border peer command should be in r1.
>>
>> Another thot that came across my mind is to configure
>> r1 in prosmicuous mode. Then r2 and r3 will peer with r1.
>> Doing this will violate the rule again becos there will be 2 peer
connection.
>> Note that the question states ONE peer connection NOT one peer command.
>> That is to say when u do a sh dlsw peer, there should be only ONE
connection.
>>
>> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Eng Wee
>>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:21:46 GMT-3