From: Ben-Shalom, Omer (omer.ben-shalom@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Nov 09 2001 - 13:52:55 GMT-3
This is not a rumor at least not in my experience and I expect the policy is
the same
everywhere.
Suppose for example in the days that you still had access to racks you
needed to perform password recovery on a router and could not do it or had
something else that made it impossible for you to access one of the routers
or more, if the proctor did not help you out and take out those points you
could step out and go out the door as having a full router not accessible is
really likely to kill ALL your sections and certainly enough to fail you.
Should someone who does not know the break sequence and did not know where
to find it be considered not suitable for CCIE just for that ?
In any case, right or wrong if you think a critical section is something you
cannot swing and want it fixed to be able to carry on tests later ask the
proctor, worst case he/she will say no, what have you got to lost.
I think this is right in general, don't consider the proctor to be against
you, my experience with the SJ proctors was very favorable Cathie was
charming and seemed really to like people to succeed and did whatever she
could (without giving you something that is not allowed) to make people feel
welcome in the lab, think of the proctors as your friends and don't be shy
about asking (reasonable amount of) questions.
Omer.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Brown [mailto:Jim.Brown@CaseLogic.com]
Sent: Fri, November 09, 2001 1:31 AM
To: 'Richard Foltz'; Don Dettmore; ccielab@groupstudy.com
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 - 06:45:11 GMT-3