From: Ron.Fuller@xxxxxx
Date: Tue Aug 22 2000 - 14:35:44 GMT-3
I guess I don't look at it as unfair. The technology and capabilities of
internetworking gear have changed quite a bit in two years and the CCIE
program has adapted to reflect that. Now I don't think that the addition
of ATM was a good way to keep the CCIE current, but the addition of voice
is right on the money. It took me 6 times through the lab over the last
1.5 years before I earned my CCIE. I still wish I could take the lab I had
the first time out. It was light years easier than the one I took when I
passed. But I look at the change in the test as being just part of the
deal. If you make it TOO easy, then we would be at CCIE #100,423 and it
would be as worthwhile as some of the other vendor certs that are out
there. My Master CNE is almost not worth the paper it is written on in our
market.
In response to the person that took the lab and used the "wrong" technique
to meet the needs of the exam, I would recommend using the proctor as a
resource. It took me 2 times through the lab before I realized that the
proctor CAN be used as a resource. If you ask a question and state your
reasons why either solution would work and ask which one they are looking
for, you might get the answer. This doesn't apply to everything on the
lab, but the proctor can help clarify a scenario for you that might make
the right light bulbs light up.
Just my experience, though. YMMV.
Ron Fuller, CCIE #5851, CCDP, CCNP-ATM, CCNP-Security, MCNE
3X Corporation
rfuller@3x.com
rtouch.com To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Sent by: cc:
nobody@groupstudy.co Subject: RE: Lab Q ?
m
08/22/00 12:50 PM
Please respond to
Timur.Mirza
to a certain extent, the ccie exam is unfair...they tout consistency (in
not
doling out partial points) yet they are not consistent when it comes to the
degree of difficulty (a ccie two years ago is not the same as a ccie
today)...you cannot know about every way to do everything...the way i
perceive
it, i consider myself fairly competent & i'm just going to keep taking the
exam
'til pass - my path is bound to intersect w/ an exam that is somewhat
viable...i'm 100% certain that if i took the exam two short years ago, i
would
have passed it on the first attempt...timur (10/14-15 @ rtp)
---------------------- Forwarded by Timur Mirza/Corporate/AirTouch on
08/22/2000
09:45 AM ---------------------------
"Brian S turner" <brian@theatlasgroup.net> on 08/19/2000 08:16:05 AM
Please respond to "Brian S turner" <brian@theatlasgroup.net>
To: "'David H. Brown'" <DHBrown@Pipeline.com>, "'damien'"
<damien@clara.co.uk>
cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com (bcc: Timur Mirza/Corporate/AirTouch)
Subject: RE: Lab Q ?
Well In my lab a month ago I accomplished all the goals of the question,
but
the proctor was looking for a specific way for it to be done and he marked
it wrong, apparently I was the first person he had ever seen try to do it
that way. Granted the question was in a round about way pointing me toward
the other solution now that I think about it, but My solution didn't break
any of the rules of the task. I argued about it, and he said he would
check
into and email me. He never emailed me... It wouldn't have helped me
pass, but its the principle of the matter...
Well without breaking disclosure I can't really explain more of it. But
trust me on this one Try to understand the intent of the questions, and
understand that there may be a slight error in the wording on a few
questions. The real problem is, what is a wording error and what is a
hidden issue???
In my case it was a wording error, but apparently they don't care to fix it
or they are to Simple minded to realize that they are producing a flawed
lab. I had a friend who recently took it and ran into the same confusing
wording error on the same problem, he was able to deduce around the issue.
Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
David H. Brown
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2000 9:12 AM
To: 'damien'
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Lab Q ?
Damien,
Any configuration that meets the requirements stated (and that means ALL
of the requirements) is allowed. We all know there are multiple ways of
achieving the same result within IOS, but sometimes you will be restricted
in which commands you can use. So my rule of thumb is to know every
different way to achieve any required result in every technology within
IOS.
If you can do that, you are an expert.
David
(RTP lab 9/18)
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
damien
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2000 5:15 AM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Lab Q ?
Just regarding configuration solutions in the Lab. Is any configuration
acceptable in the Lab as long as it works. What I am getting at is
configurtions in the Lab as we all know are unreal for the most part,
but there is also configurations which are only for a Lab environment.
As an example. If you are configuring a Typical Frame relay set up
where
you are required only on certain interfaces to use the physical others
to use subs, others where you are not allowed to use inverse-arp and
limited to one frame map statement etc etc.....
Is it okay to use things like policy route-maps to set next hops...ip
local policys for traffic originated by the Router etc. etc..........
This is a hard Q to put in writing...........
(See attached file: att1.htm)
Well In my lab a month ago I accomplished all the goals of the
question, but the proctor was looking for a specific way for it to be
done and he marked it wrong, apparently I was the first person he had
ever seen try to do it that way. Granted the question was in a round
about way pointing me toward the other solution now that I think about
it, but My solution didn't break any of the rules of the task. I
argued about it, and he said he would check into and email me. He
never emailed me... It wouldn't have helped me pass, but its the
principle of the matter...
Well without breaking disclosure I can't really explain more of it.
But trust me on this one Try to understand the intent of the
questions, and understand that there may be a slight error in the
wording on a few questions. The real problem is, what is a wording
error and what is a hidden issue???
In my case it was a wording error, but apparently they don't care to
fix it or they are to Simple minded to realize that they are producing
a flawed lab. I had a friend who recently took it and ran into the
same confusing wording error on the same problem, he was able to
deduce around the issue.
Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
David H. Brown
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2000 9:12 AM
To: 'damien'
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Lab Q ?
Damien,
Any configuration that meets the requirements stated (and that means
ALL of the requirements) is allowed. We all know there are multiple
ways of achieving the same result within IOS, but sometimes you will
be restricted in which commands you can use. So my rule of thumb is
to know every different way to achieve any required result in every
technology within IOS. If you can do that, you are an expert.
David
(RTP lab 9/18)
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
damien
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2000 5:15 AM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Lab Q ?
Just regarding configuration solutions in the Lab. Is any
configuration
acceptable in the Lab as long as it works. What I am getting at is
configurtions in the Lab as we all know are unreal for the most part,
but there is also configurations which are only for a Lab environment.
As an example. If you are configuring a Typical Frame relay set up
where
you are required only on certain interfaces to use the physical others
to use subs, others where you are not allowed to use inverse-arp and
limited to one frame map statement etc etc.....
Is it okay to use things like policy route-maps to set next hops...ip
local policys for traffic originated by the Router etc. etc..........
This is a hard Q to put in writing...........
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:24:28 GMT-3