From: Jim Brown (Jim.Brown@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Nov 08 2001 - 20:55:20 GMT-3
That's odd, because I know someone who recently tested at another site and
they told them completely the opposite? He asked that specific question
because of trouble with an underlying technology.
I wonder why they specify "You only receive points for working
configurations".
It may be at the proctor's discretion, but I think you would be way out of
line to walk away assuming you would get points for a non working
configuration.
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Foltz [mailto:ccie2b@rfoltz.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 4:56 PM
To: Jim Brown; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: how does lab grading work?
Once again, I took the exam in RTP last friday. The proctor specifically
said they WILL NOT double ding you for points. They do look at your configs
and they will be graded by correct configs. Now if your lower layers dont
work, and you cant test your higher layers then you will probably lose
points for that, however if your configs would work even if the lower layers
arnt, then you would be given the points for competing that task
successfully.
Richard Foltz, CCIE#8339, CCNP-Voice, CCDP, MCSE+I, Network+, A+
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Brown" <Jim.Brown@CaseLogic.com>
To: "'Richard Foltz'" <ccie2b@rfoltz.com>; "Don Dettmore"
<don@donshouse.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 5:31 PM
Subject: RE: how does lab grading work?
> I think you are wrong.
>
> You only receive points for working configurations.
>
> It doesn't matter if you configured it correctly, if it doesn't work
because
> of a dependency on an earlier section then you lose.
>
> This is why I have always heard to patch a section together if you
> can't make it work within the requirements to receive the points on
> dependant sections. I would put money on this.
>
> A rumor I've heard is you can concede points on a section and ask the
> proctors to make it work so you can obtain the points on a dependant
> section. I have no idea if this is true. This may fall into the realm
> of rumors like they won't give you any extra paper or they mess with
> your configs in midstream.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Foltz [mailto:ccie2b@rfoltz.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 3:31 PM
> To: Don Dettmore; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: how does lab grading work?
>
>
> i would have to say that is definately not true.
> Richard Foltz, CCIE#8339, CCNP-Voice, CCDP, MCSE+I, Network+, A+
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Dettmore" <don@donshouse.com>
> To: "Richard Foltz" <ccie2b@rfoltz.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 5:16 PM
> Subject: Re: how does lab grading work?
>
>
> > You see, I thought the opposite from what I read on this forum -
> > that even before they go through the configurations, they run an
> > automated ping script - and if your pings don't work, you
> > automatically fail the section (without anyone ever looking at it).
> > Is that not true?
> >
> > Don Dettmore
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Richard Foltz" <ccie2b@rfoltz.com>
> > To: "Don Dettmore" <don@donshouse.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 4:11 PM
> > Subject: Re: how does lab grading work?
> >
> >
> > > no, the proctor in RTP specifically said they do not double ding
> > > you for points. Richard Foltz, CCIE#8339, CCNP-Voice, CCDP,
> > > MCSE+I,
> > > Network+, A+
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Don Dettmore" <don@donshouse.com>
> > > To: "CCIE Lab List" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 4:55 PM
> > > Subject: how does lab grading work?
> > >
> > >
> > > > I have a question on how the lab grading works. I took it
> > > > recently -
> > > failed
> > > > :0( - but was unable to receive a debriefing (long story) I was
> > therefore
> > > > unable to ask questions on what I missed.
> > > >
> > > > I noticed during the lab that getting a section working was
> > > > often
> > > dependent on
> > > > getting an earlier section working. Well, what if you do the
> > > configurations
> > > > for a section correctly, but your pings don't work due to a
> > > > deficiency
> > of
> > > an
> > > > earlier section. Do you lose credit for both sections????
> > > >
> > > > Let me give you an hypothetical example (this is nothing like
> > > > what was
> > on
> > > my
> > > > exam, just an example):
> > > >
> > > > RouterA ---- RouterB ---- RouterC --- RouterD
> > > >
> > > > Section 1: Configure OSPF on routers A, B, and C so that RouterA
> > > > can
> > ping
> > > > RouterC.
> > > >
> > > > Section 2: Configure ISIS on RouterC and RouterD. Redistribute
> > > > such
> > that
> > > > RouterA can ping RouterD.
> > > >
> > > > For argument's sake, lets say you have trouble with section one
> > > > and
> just
> > > can't
> > > > get RouterA to ping RouterC. BUT, you are comfortable with
> > > > Section 2,
> > and
> > > > configure everything correctly. HOWEVER, because of your
> > > > failure on
> > > section
> > > > 1, RouterA still cannot ping RouterD (thus failing to satisfy
> > > > section
> > 2's
> > > > criteria, despite the fact that you configured it correctly).
> > > > Do you
> > lose
> > > the
> > > > points for section 2 as well (even though you configured it
> correctly)?
> > > >
> > > > Sadly, I had several analogous situations on my lab, and I think
> > > > they
> > > might be
> > > > the reason I failed.
> > > >
> > > > My questions is this: should I have 'kluged' a section I knew I
> > > > was
> > going
> > > to
> > > > miss anyway, just to get another section working? Say, in the
> > > > example
> > > above,
> > > > If you knew you were going to miss section one anyway, would it
> > > > be
> worth
> > > it to
> > > > put in static routes (even if expressly forbidden) to accomplish
> section
> > 1
> > > > just to get section 2 pings to work?
> > > >
> > > > I'm retaking my lab soon, and I'd like to know if I need to
> > > > resort to
> > > stuff
> > > > like that.
> > > >
> > > > TIA
> > > >
> > > > Don Dettmore
> > > >
> > > > PS: props to anyone who actually made it to the end of this
> > > > email
> > > > -
> you
> > > are
> > > > truly dedicated (way more than me ;-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jun 21 2002 - 06:45:10 GMT-3