From: Dillon Yang (dillony@gmail.com)
Date: Sat Jul 23 2005 - 04:51:03 GMT-3
Explicitly tell you:
I do have a M.S. degree of software engineering.
I have a IQ score of 135 based on some online test.
I spent more than a year and given up my job for excluding the other intentions.
I refused several training vendors that were successful with cheating materials, some guys which I knowed begin at the same time passed in their 2nd attempt.
I just like learning as Scott said, I pursue it for it is said the most difficulty and I joined in the group, went through the cddoc, went over some workbook, experienced in virtual lab exam.
The most important thing is that most of the sectors are what I am familiar in, and I put a valid solution in.
So, a man like me can not pass the exam, it indicates something you have been noticed.
TIA
dillon
----- Original Message -----
From: "supernet" <supernet@comcast.net>
To: "'Dillon Yang'" <dillony@gmail.com>; "'Ed Tan'" <tytanx@gmail.com>; "'Group Study'" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 12:14 PM
Subject: RE: GSIE vs ccie program Re: Lee's failed the 2nd
> Why not simply go for a degree?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Dillon Yang
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 7:21 PM
> To: 'Ed Tan'; 'Group Study'
> Subject: GSIE vs ccie program Re: Lee's failed the 2nd
>
> "psychology"?
> OK, everybody, please add a psychology course before your lab exam, about
> 1250 bucks. :)
> It seems inconsistent with "any particular technology"!
>
>
> "a different way"?
> Yes, we ALL KNOW ccie lab exam has a different way in wording and grading,
> and we ALL work hard to approach this like blind donkey, BUT actually, it
> blocks us to approach, based on its performance. I believe it is
> questionable if you can not get a objective grading,
>
> =============================================
>
> I have a suggestion that we should ally together to form an individual
> certification from the vendors such as cisco, juniper, or 3com.
>
> The individual certification may be called GSIE. GSIE supplies service by
> NMC,IP and etc. since they all have a system of racks and practical labs and
> grading service. Therefore, the training vendors may end up the contending
> state for the gaudy ccie PRIVATE program.
>
> Objective of GSIE
> GSIE will provide a public grading for engineers in IP world. The relation
> between GSIE and CCIE is equivalent, similar to IETF and ITU, or IELTS and
> TOFEL, BUT GSIE's grading will be more justicial and more chances for
> product vendors and more seats for candidates. GSIE will provide numerical
> result instead of pass or failed, that may be 50% or 93%, and with which a
> candidate can show to his boss or friends.
>
> Value of GSIE
> GSIE will express the exam with a plain wording excluding any word game.
> The difficulty will equal to CCIE or excel it.
> I experienced the NMC CHECKiT lab, it was harder than any my attempt in ccie
> lab, the IP and etc. should be, I guess.
>
> Location of GSIE
> GSIE will get benefit from the PROMETRIC or VUE or others without
> face-to-face like CCIE. But GSIE should provide more security on exam. Since
> a candidate in ccie lab exam is actually using remote telnet to finish the
> configuration of devices, a testing center will adapt to the requirement.
> All what the ccie proctor need to do, is watching you for not talking and
> not calling a phone and not taking away exam stuffs, that is a simple and
> tasteless work, so fewer and fewer proctors appear in HK location. Then, a
> thoughtful remote exam will be successful.
>
> Update of GSIE
> To prevent cheating in exam, GSIE will prepare a large database of exam
> like IELTS or GRE. So, it is allowed for a candidates to discuss his scores
> and to learn the way to work out.
>
> =====================================
>
> Any advice will be welcome.
> Caslow (NMC), Brain (IP), Marc(NLC)
>
> TIA
> dillon
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Morris" <swm@emanon.com>
> To: "'Ed Tan'" <tytanx@gmail.com>; "'Group Study'" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 2:52 AM
> Subject: RE: I Failed for the 2nd time yesterday in Brussels, has the R& S
> lab got more tricky??
>
>
> > The test is as much psychology and logic as it is any particular
> technology.
> >
> > No matter how many practice labs that you and up doing, that by itself
> will
> > NOT prepare you for the real exam. Although each of the test vendor's and
> > bootcamp vendor's has some bright people working with them, each one has a
> > different perspective about the lab. Each one is different in their focus
> > on style and technology. And even though you may master one vendor's
> > viewpoint and feel very comfortable, going to the real exam gives someone
> > else's perspective.
> >
> > This isn't really any different than when some of us old farts took our
> exam
> > back where there wasn't much (or any) prep material. No matter how much
> we
> > studied, or how many weird things we thought up and went through, there
> was
> > always SOMETHING that someone else thought of or a different way that
> wasn't
> > practiced.
> >
> > Knowing your technologies is great! Having a good sense of logic is
> great!
> > You need to be able to think things through and know what your router is
> > thinking and why things happen the way they do. This is a thinking test,
> > not a practice and memorize test. And don't forget, the DocCD is your
> > friend. In fact, in the middle of the exam, it's the ONLY friend you
> have.
> > Know it well!
> >
> > Asking how much practice is enough is a question that you are the only
> that
> > can answer. The lab is not simple at all, but any complicated task can be
> > broken down into a collection of simple tasks. It just takes a certain
> > level of understanding and logic to do that many times. Pay attention to
> > this list as some interesting things are discussed in depth! Just
> remember
> > that since none of us are allowed to discuss or duplicate what we've seen
> on
> > labs, the practice labs you get will always represent someone's
> > interpretation of a "fleeting thought" that sounds like a good thing to
> > bring in.
> >
> > 80% only sounds easy until you're in the middle of the exam. :) From
> what
> > I've heard, the average number of attempts to pass is approaching 4 per
> > person. That means some get there faster, others do not. At some point
> in
> > your prep, you will simply need to suck it up and just take the exam!
> Maybe
> > you've prepped enough by then, maybe you learn that you haven't. Either
> > way, you now have a better perspective of practice labs versus the real
> one
> > and can fine-tune your studying for the next time as necessary.
> >
> > As for wording on the exam, I will agree that we aren't supposed to read
> > Shakespeare (For whom doth the bell toll?) but wherever wording isn't
> clear,
> > you should ask the proctor until you understand what is being asked! But
> > you also need to remember that this is not a reality-based exam. It's a
> > technology-based one. If it were common reality, your frame relay cloud
> > would consist of very simple point to point subinterfaces and nobody would
> > bother turnin off inverse arp. :) But if we all did that, where would
> the
> > value be in knowing whether someone really understands that stuff or not?
> >
> > I don't mean to sound discouraging here... Some people will pass the lab
> on
> > their first try! But they even never really know whether their prep was
> > enough until they are done. At some point, you simply need to take a
> > chance!
> >
> > Best of luck!
> >
> > HTH,
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Ed
> > Tan
> > Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 12:54 PM
> > To: Group Study
> > Subject: Re: I Failed for the 2nd time yesterday in Brussels, has the R& S
> > lab got more tricky??
> >
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > 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