From: Richard Dumoulin (richard.dumoulin@vanco.es)
Date: Tue Apr 27 2004 - 08:16:16 GMT-3
At least we can see how easily and without noticing it one can loose points
! This may explain why many people think they should have passed but do not,
--Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: Yasser Abdullah [mailto:yasser@alharbitelecom.com]
Sent: martes, 27 de abril de 2004 13:04
To: 'ccie2be'; Richard Dumoulin; 'Kenneth Wygand'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Failed again - recommendation to regrade?
Technically it would make no difference. However, you could very possibly
lose the points, depending on the requirements.
One exception, off course, is when using atm pvc-discovery with the
subinterface keyword. The subinterface number must match the pvc.
Yasser
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
ccie2be
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 1:50 PM
To: Richard Dumoulin; Kenneth Wygand; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Failed again - recommendation to regrade?
Hey Richard,
Unless you're told the sub has to be specified that particular way in the
lab instructions, it doesn't matter if you use int s0.1 or int s0.<dlci>
At least that's my understanding. And, I'm 99% confident that is correct.
If someone knows differently, I'd like to hear what they have to say.
Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Dumoulin" <richard.dumoulin@vanco.es>
To: "Kenneth Wygand" <KWygand@customonline.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 3:42 AM
Subject: RE: Failed again - recommendation to regrade?
> Hi Kenneth, sorry to hear that. But have you tried a mock lab ? The
> feedback is well worth to detect errors you may not notice on your
own.
> I took one last week and one of my errors was that whenever I would
> configure a frame-relay subinterface I would type "interface serial
0/0.1
> point-to-point" instead of "interface serial0/0.301 point-to-point"
which
> was on the diagram !?!?!? It is a stupid mistake I would never had
> noticed on my own.
>
> Regards
>
> --Richard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kenneth Wygand [mailto:KWygand@customonline.com]
> Sent: martes, 27 de abril de 2004 3:13
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Failed again - recommendation to regrade?
>
>
> Well according to Cisco, I just failed my second attempt at RTP.
Funny
> thing is I think I failed by approximately 9 points, yet some of the
> sections they took points from were working perfectly! Satisfied all
the
> requirements and 99% sure I determined and avoided all the pitfalls.
>
>
>
> I'm going to go for the regrade and hope to make the 0.000000003% (or
at
> least that's how it seems). I just hope the proctor regrading the
exam
> doesn't care more about keeping the "overturned regrades ratio" down
than
> doing an honest regrade.
>
>
>
> Honestly, I think the proctor that answers your questions should be
the
> proctor that grades (or at least regrades) your exam. I'm not
confident
the
> answers to the questions I received from my proctor are consistent
across
> all proctors grading these exams.
>
>
>
> ::sigh:: I'll keep you all updated.
>
>
>
> Kenneth E. Wygand
> Systems Engineer, Project Services
>
> CISSP #37102, CCNP, CCDP, ACSP, Cisco IPT Design Specialist, MCP, CNA,
> Network+, A+
> Custom Computer Specialists, Inc.
>
> "I am not really smart. I just stick with problems longer." -Albert
Einstein
>
>
>
> Custom Computer Specialists, Inc.
>
> "Celebrating 25 Years of Excellence"
>
> [GroupStudy removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name
of
> image001.gif]
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon May 03 2004 - 19:48:56 GMT-3