From: kevin gannon (kevin@gannons.net)
Date: Wed Nov 23 2005 - 05:49:23 GMT-3
The proctors do have a way of checking the solution.
As on one of my attempts a QOS question was missing
the quanity it had say 80 but no Kbps KBps or Mb/s.
He said he would check and off he went and when he
came back he had an answer.
Regards
Kevin
On 11/23/05, Donny mateo Tandase <donnymateo@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This does not answer your question directly.
> When you scored wrong in a point, it's my understanding (needs to be verified) that the proctor in the lab will double check it and see why it's considered to be wrong.
> Human intervention is introduced on those points where you failed the script test, and the one doing the testing as far as I know is you proctor.
>
> Again, I might be wrong on this or this might had changed since the last time I took the test (back in 2003). If anyone could verify this at least this would give you of our friend a peace of mind.
>
> imo, sadly but quite true, luck is also a major factor in our everyday life.
>
> Donny
>
> CCIEin2006 <ciscocciein2006@gmail.com> wrote:
> Excellent questions, James. I often wonder the same things.
> Is it possible that a proctor in a foreign country is mistakedly failing
> people because some task interpretations get lost in translation?
>
> On 11/22/05, James Matrisciano wrote:
> >
> > Ok,
> >
> > Getting ready to go back again and pass this time, but now I find that
> > I am reading into the questions in some areas. maybe some of you that
> > have passed this great hurdle can shed some light on those of us that
> > feel that their brains are about to pop.
> >
> > Lets say you are told to:
> > RIP
> > exchange updates only on links specified (between R2 and R3 and R4)
> >
> > Now, you could do this with a passive interface and a no passive
> > interface on the interfaces that need to participate in the RIP updates,
> > you could also do this with neighbor commands, eliminating the broadcast
> > address in your rip updates.
> >
> > Now, nothing said it HAD to be unicast, or to NOT use a unicast address,
> > but would it be wrong?
> >
> > Same goes for EIGRP
> >
> > Use a neighbor command or just specify a subnet mask at the end of the
> > network statement?
> >
> >
> > Frame Relay.
> >
> > As a best practice, I pretty much always use the broadcast statement at
> > the end of a frame map ip command. But what about the local interface.
> > If it does not say that it must ping itself, should you do it any way?
> > Are they (the sadistic individuals that write and grade these tests from
> > Hades) going to look at your sh frame map commands and determine that
> > you should only have two map statements in your router and dock you for
> > having three (multipoint interface connected to two other routers via
> > map statements)?
> >
> > Like I said, I am at the point to where I am reading into the questions
> > and guidelines (or lack there of). I know, ask the proctor, but it has
> > been my experience that the proctor doesn't always know what the end
> > result will be from the proctor out in Australia that is going to grade
> > my masterpiece. I know that to pass this you must know how to configure
> > everything about 5 different ways, I am at that point, but now I am just
> > concerned that one of the ways that I choose (even though it doesn't
> > effect the rest of the topology) may be incorrect.
> >
> > Any incite, words of wisdom and just "this is what my buddy did"
> > comments are most welcome
> >
> >
> > jm
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Dec 01 2005 - 09:12:07 GMT-3