From: Dillon Yang (dillony@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Jul 22 2005 - 13:27:34 GMT-3
Lucky? Unlucky?
Is CCIE lab exam a gamble game?
Lee, we are in the SAME boat, you and me, the same day.
I believe the CCIE lab exam is unfair.
First, it forbids you to get feedback from exam by so-called NDA, you can not leak your scores to the others, meanwhile, it ask you for feedback to help them to work better.
Everyone knows that the feedback is important for learning. Why can we speak? Because we can listen! We can speak more than one languages by listening. We speak scrannel words and the others point out the mistakes and we learn the correct speaking by the feedback. Therefore, the deafs can not speak though they can shout sometimes. Fortunately, or Unfortunately, I experienced a repeated topology in my last attempt, but I still got no more than the last score in IGP and BGP that I had labbed thousands times. I still can not understand why I could not get the 100% in Bridging, IGP, BGP since a perfect TCLSH worked well. In fact, it has nothing to show your weak point such as ineligible configuration or lack of verification or something else. So, How can we get progress in this situation?
Second, the gaudy wording. An engineer's responsibility is to help his clients to finish networking, not to read Shakespeare. The tricks in the lab will never appear in the conversations of his client. So, it is obvious that it helps something out of technology.
Third, it is originally a PRIVATE certification, not public ones such as GRE. The candidate's scores should be able to discussed publicly if it was justicial. You have no way to appeal the problem in your lab unless you would like to pay more 250 bucks. The command "isdn test" could not assure the link is OK and caused the router show "software-error" and reboot.
The real reason, I think, for a long-term exam, it is lazy to update the contents of lab exam, and it keep the lab in a mysterious state to prevent cheating. However, a lot of cheating materials come from the unfenced method. Do you ofter receive the email with titled "real lab"? The cheating materials will be invalid if it is diligent in updating and keeping the lab fresh.
IMHO
dillon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Donald" <Lee.Donald@t-systems.co.uk>
To: "Amit Jain" <netsteps@rediffmail.com>; "Group Study" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 5:19 PM
Subject: RE: I Failed for the 2nd time yesterday in Brussels, has the R& S lab got more tricky??
> Hi Amit,
>
> With all the success stories maybe you might think it is easy, but you would
> be wrong. People don't tend to tell you when they've failed, only when
> they've passed.
> The CCIE Lab is the most sort after exam to get, and companies pay top
> dollar for a CCIE Engineer. Well there's a reason for this, and it's not
> because the exam is easy. It's because the exam is very difficult, and
> people have to study and really know there stuff before they pass it that's
> why.
>
> I used Internetworking Expert for my workbook and their on-demand classes
> which are both worth every penny. Only my personnel choice.
>
> I think you can judge your readiness when you start knowing what the
> questions relate to, and you understand them, as oppose to just knowing
> that you have to add this command to get it working.
>
> In my opinion I was ready and still am, but it depends on your luck on the
> day.
>
> Maybe 3rd time lucky? I can't be unlucky forever!!
>
> HTH
>
> Lee.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Amit Jain [mailto:netsteps@rediffmail.com]
> Sent: 22 July 2005 09:48
> To: Group Study
> Subject: Re: I Failed for the 2nd time yesterday in Brussels, has the R&S
> lab got more tricky??
>
> Lee
>
> Out of all bad things that must have happened with you, one good thing you
> did was to give your feedback. By reading all the success stories many of us
> who will be appearing for first attempt may tend to think that lab is not
> all that complex and hard to crack. After reading a story such as yours, we
> need to make sure within ourselves that the measures we take to judge our
> rediness, should be concrete and full-proof to save repeated waste of time,
> effort and money.
>
> Amit jain
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Arun Arumuganainar" <aarumuga@hotmail.com>
> To: "De Witt, Duane" <duane.dewitt@siemens.com>; "Lee Donald"
> <Lee.Donald@t-systems.co.uk>; "Group Study" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 1:42 PM
> Subject: Re: I Failed for the 2nd time yesterday in Brussels, has the R&S
> lab got more tricky??
>
>
> > In such a case you can apply for re-valuation !!! I think it cost another
> > 250 Bucks but there are incidences where in candidates have actually
> passed
> > after this process .
> >
> > I remember some body telling me about the evaluation processes . It will
> go
> > on like this .
> >
> > First , A script will be running . If the script returns a score which is
> > very close to 80 ( Band of 65 to 100 ) . Then Manual evaluation will be
> > done by the proctor .
> >
> > Note : Even when score is say 90 or 100 will mandate manual evaluation .
> >
> > Also all our conversation are store is server . While doing evaluation
> those
> > configuration are uploaded on the routers and script will running on it
> !!!
> > So given the system of evaluation we need to do the following before we
> > leave the lab .
> >
> > 1) Save all the configuration .
> > 2) Reload all the router and check still the features are working as given
> > in the question sheet .
> >
> > These two steps will prepare us for script evaluation .
> >
> > Thanks and Regards
> > Arun
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "De Witt, Duane" <duane.dewitt@siemens.com>
> > To: "Lee Donald" <Lee.Donald@t-systems.co.uk>; "Group Study"
> > <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 12:17 PM
> > Subject: RE: I Failed for the 2nd time yesterday in Brussels, has the R&S
> > lab got more tricky??
> >
> >
> > > I had the same experience with my BGP. I had character for character
> > > what they asked for and still didn't get the points. This makes me
> > > believe that the proctors don't actually look at the output but just run
> > > it through the script and leave it at that.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> > > Lee Donald
> > > Sent: 21 July 2005 02:56 PM
> > > To: 'Group Study'
> > > Subject: I Failed for the 2nd time yesterday in Brussels, has the R&S
> > > lab got more tricky??
> > >
> > > Hi Group,
> > >
> > > I failed for the 2nd time yesterday in Brussels after a mammoth effort
> > > of
> > > studying and courses etc.
> > > When I walked out the door I was fairly sure I'd passed (which makes it
> > > even
> > > worse) but what I can't understand is their marking, probably won't ever
> > > understand it.
> > >
> > > Certain sections like my BGP were spot on and running like a brand new
> > > BMW (
> > > so I thought) they even gave you screen outputs of what your "show ip
> > > bgp "
> > > should look like, well mine looked like that but I got 39%.
> > >
> > > I don't know whether their testing you to see if you know and can
> > > configure
> > > the technology, or trying to trip you up with Cryptic questions that are
> > > designed to mislead you.
> > >
> > > Any Comments, sorry having a Hate Cisco day.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Lee.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ccie2be [mailto:ccie2be@nyc.rr.com]
> > > Sent: 21 July 2005 12:48
> > > To: 'Shanky'; 'Group Study'
> > > Subject: RE: OSPF: Remember old DR 2.1.1.10 (id) ... why ?
> > >
> > > Shanky,
> > >
> > > I don't know if this answers your question directly but I can tell you
> > > this.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ospf doesn't use preemption in the election of the DR and BDR. Because
> > > of
> > > this ospf is more stable on a broadcast segment. Once a DR is elected,
> > > that
> > > router will remain as the DR even if another router on the same segment
> > > comes on line with a higher priority.
> > >
> > > This being the case, I guess that its necessary for a non-Dr and non-BDR
> > > router to remember who the DR and BDR were if it were to go down so that
> > > when it comes back up it knows with which routers to re-establish
> > > adjacencies with.
> > >
> > > As far as the lab goes, I don't think this detail is that important.
> > > What's
> > > really important is that you're aware of this non-preempt behavior so
> > > that
> > > when you configure ospf on a broadcast or nbma segment, you know to set
> > > the
> > > priority to 0 on routers which should not become the DR or BDR before
> > > bringing the router up on the segment.
> > >
> > > HTH, Tim
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> > > Shanky
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 1:20 AM
> > > To: Group Study
> > > Subject: OSPF: Remember old DR 2.1.1.10 (id) ... why ?
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > I got the foll output with debug ip ospf adj when I shut the serial to
> > > FR
> > > switch down on the spoke in NBMA mode. Why does the router remember who
> > > the
> > > old DR was as shown in the output ? I mean, once new DR is selected,
> > > even if
> > > the old DR comes back online (Say after a crash), it doesnt affect.
> > > **Mar 1 16:15:15.799: OSPF: Remember old DR 2.1.1.10 <http://2.1.1.10>
> > > (id)
> > > ... why does the router remember the old DR?*
> > > *Mar 1 16:15:15.795: OSPF: Interface Serial0/0 going Down
> > > *Mar 1 16:15:15.795: OSPF: 1.1.1.1 <http://1.1.1.1> address
> > > 1.1.1.1<http://1.1.1.1>on Serial0/0 is dead, state
> > > DOWN
> > > *Mar 1 16:15:15.795: OSPF: Neighbor change Event on interface Serial0/0
> > > *Mar 1 16:15:15.795: OSPF: DR/BDR election on Serial0/0
> > > *Mar 1 16:15:15.795: OSPF: Elect BDR 0.0.0.0 <http://0.0.0.0>
> > > *Mar 1 16:15:15.795: OSPF: Elect DR 2.1.1.10 <http://2.1.1.10>
> > > *Mar 1 16:15:15.795: OSPF: Elect BDR 0.0.0.0 <http://0.0.0.0>
> > > *Mar 1 16:15:15.795: OSPF: Elect DR 2.1.1.10 <http://2.1.1.10>
> > > *Mar 1 16:15:15.799: DR: 2.1.1.10 <http://2.1.1.10> (Id) BDR: none
> > > *Mar 1 16:15:15.799: OSPF: 2.1.1.10 <http://2.1.1.10> address
> > > 1.1.1.2<http://1.1.1.2>on Serial0/0 is dead, state
> > > DOWN
> > > *Mar 1 16:15:15.799: %OSPF-5-ADJCHG: Process 1, Nbr
> > > 2.1.1.10<http://2.1.1.10>on Serial0/0 from
> > > FULL to DOWN, Neighbor Down: Interface down or detached
> > > *Mar 1 16:15:15.799: OSPF: Neighbor change Event on interface Serial0/0
> > > *Mar 1 16:15:15.799: OSPF: DR/BDR election on Serial0/0
> > > *Mar 1 16:15:15.799: OSPF: Elect BDR 0.0.0.0 <http://0.0.0.0>
> > > *Mar 1 16:15:15.799: OSPF: Elect DR 0.0.0.0 <http://0.0.0.0>
> > > *Mar 1 16:15:15.799: DR: none BDR: none
> > > **Mar 1 16:15:15.799: OSPF: Remember old DR 2.1.1.10 <http://2.1.1.10>
> > > (id)*
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________________________________
> > > Subscription information may be found at:
> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________________________________
> > > Subscription information may be found at:
> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________________________________
> > > Subscription information may be found at:
> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________________________________
> > > Subscription information may be found at:
> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 04 2005 - 17:00:30 GMT-3