From: Shaun Nicholson (Shaun.Nicholson@xxxxxx)
Date: Fri Oct 27 2000 - 10:52:53 GMT-3
This has certainly stirred up a lot of comments and to be honest this was the s
ort of answer I was looking for.
I know NDA is a bitch but the questions and possible answers are so badly worde
d you could spend 2 bloody hours asking the proctor questions. These 2 hours wo
uld be better spent configuring routers I know I've been there.
Now this was not on my exam so I anit breaking NDA but when the wording says th
at a DDR circuit (using OSPF) must come up immediately on failure of a frame li
nk and drop as soon as the circuit is restored the only option in my opinion is
to use OSPF demand circuit.
What do you guys think? would this be acceptable ? I think you cannot use the B
ackup Interface circuit (if your allowed too) but there is a lot of delays invo
lved in this. I know you can tweak it but would that be acceptable?
By the way these are all metaphorical questions and I'm again only looking for
some feedback on this one as I have (and sure other users have) found this disc
ussion very useful.
Again please think about NDA before answering I dont want to upset anyone out t
here. My aim is to make the lab a little bit clearer for all involved especiall
y myself.
Thanks
Shaun
howard.rahmlow@unisys.com on 10/26/2000 04:45:00 PM
To: robertdevito@hotmail.com@Internet, eparra@cisco.com@Internet, forestr@g
te.net@Internet, masalmon@cisco.com@Internet
cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com@Internet (bcc: Shaun Nicholson/MD/KAIPERM)
Subject: RE: Loosing marks for extra commands
Take a look at CCbootcamp. That will give you an idea. Just to add to the
flow. I know in my last shot I got nailed for this. In my case it was OSPF,
DDR. I put the demand circut on both sides of the link, this is a no, no,
and I lost points (all the points).
Howard
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert DeVito [mailto:robertdevito@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 2:37 PM
To: Eddie Parra; Forest Riek; mark salmon
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Loosing marks for extra commands
Is there any labs out there that simulates the CCIE lab questions and how
they are worded?
----- Original Message -----
From: Eddie Parra
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 11:22 AM
To: Forest Riek; mark salmon
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Loosing marks for extra commands
This is very true. But I think it really depends on how you approach the
proctor. If you think something can be done two different ways, and you
know the effects of both, tell that to the proctor. Let him know that you
know how to configure both, and how it will impact your network.
Run both scenarios through him with as much detail as possible.
I used to think the CCIE lab questions were very tricky, but I started
realizing that I didn't know certain technologies as well as I needed. If
you really know the technologies, the questions seem a lot simpler. I can
not stress enough - READ THE QUESTIONS!
-Eddie
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Forest Riek
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 1:22 PM
To: mark salmon
Cc: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
Subject: Re: Loosing marks for extra commands
I have to disagree with this. On my last attempt (but not my final
attempt), I
configured a router with a command that was not 'prohibited'. I was told
during
my review that if I had asked about doing it the way I did it, I would have
been
told to find a different solution.
The safest answer is, when in doubt ASK the proctor.
Forest
mark salmon wrote:
> I suppose it depends on the scenario presented on the exam. It is my
> understanding that unless something is PROHIBITED, it is ALLOWED as long
> as it achieves the results asked for. For example, I have seen
> scenarios in a practice lab environment (e.g. fatkid.com ) where static
> routes are PROHIBITED, there are other scenarios where it is specfically
> allowed.
>
> Keep in mind that if you do no redistribution of IGP into BGP then you
> will not be able to see the routes in the BGP table as BGP and IGP are
> not synced.
>
> "Foster, Kristopher" wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, I should have been more clear. The no sync command is viewed in
the
> > same light as static routes (it takes half the fun out! :D). This
tidbit
>
> --
>
> Mark Salmon
> Network Support Engineer - SBC OP HQ
> Cisco Systems Inc
> 8735 W. Higgins Road Suite 300
> Chicago IL 60631
> Phone:773-695-8235
> Pager:800-365-4578
> email: masalmon@cisco.com
> Empowering The Internet Generation.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:25:31 GMT-3