From: Ed Tan (tytanx@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Jul 22 2005 - 13:53:45 GMT-3
Dillion, well written! I just passed my written test and actively practicing
my lab base on IEWB. I have scheduled to do my lab on Sept, but after
reading your comment, I doubt I should postpone my lab till next year?
Before this, I always think that after practicing for more than 20 labs, a
80% passing score is not a big deal, but ...... ??? Base on your comment, I
would like to know, how much practice is enough?
Ed
On 7/22/05, Dillon Yang <dillony@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 <http://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 <http://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><
> 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> <http://1.1.1.1>
> address
> > > > 1.1.1.1 <http://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> <
> http://0.0.0.0>
> > > > *Mar 1 16:15:15.795: OSPF: Elect DR 2.1.1.10 <http://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> <
> http://0.0.0.0>
> > > > *Mar 1 16:15:15.795: OSPF: Elect DR 2.1.1.10 <http://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> <http://2.1.1.10>
> (Id) BDR: none
> > > > *Mar 1 16:15:15.799: OSPF: 2.1.1.10 <http://2.1.1.10> <
> http://2.1.1.10> address
> > > > 1.1.1.2 <http://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><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> <
> http://0.0.0.0>
> > > > *Mar 1 16:15:15.799: OSPF: Elect DR 0.0.0.0 <http://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><
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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