From: @ Home NetMail (@)
Date: Fri Nov 09 2001 - 10:45:14 GMT-3
It's also releated to the wording. Like "ping all interfaces" in NBMA means
you must also map the local router's interface, so you can ping locally.
-Todd
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Dubell <bobdu11@home.com>
To: Don Dettmore <don@donshouse.com>; Richard Foltz <ccie2b@rfoltz.com>;
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: how does lab grading work?
> They grade you on the specifics for each section. If you complete section
> 1, skip section 2, but complete section 3, even though mabe you needed
some
> routing configs in sec 2 to complete sec 3 they don't ding you if you do
all
> the configurations correctly for the specific section.,.....
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don Dettmore <don@donshouse.com>
> To: Richard Foltz <ccie2b@rfoltz.com>; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Date: Thursday, November 08, 2001 5:17 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 - 06:45:11 GMT-3