From: Darby Weaver (darbyweaver@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat Apr 14 2007 - 12:07:29 ART
Perhaps and while everything is subject to some degree
of interpretation, I think the gist is there is a
common interpretation that is more or less the
"generally accepted solution" for a task given its
pitfalls and its given restrictions; else how would so
many eventually come to the relative same conclusions
in order to actually pass the lab in the first place.
Now I say this for a few reasons:
1. The lab, despite rumors to the contrary, is quite
standardized these day.
2. The proctors have stated that all labs around the
country are the same aka standardized.
3. They use a script for preliminary grading
(something must be expected, else a script would
simply not do). Now that is does not mean one could
not use a class map to solve security problems,
however, this is probably not what they mean or are
asking for. So the proctors may make the difference
here via double-checking or even re-grading.
4. Overall the lab while tricky is probably pretty
fair.
I can tell you from personal experience of having sat
the lab twice and living to tell the tale, I am now
much more keen about things I took for granted last
year or assumed - even when I thought I did not
"assume too much" at all.
Hmmm...
Basically the more hours we put into our studies, the
more reading, the more classes, the more practice,
etc. the better prepared we are obviously going to
be.
No secret there right.
The problem is we are all human and if we read
something say 3x then say we retain 80% short term and
40-50% long term.
Hmmm...
And then to make matters worse, our pride allows us to
believe we "mastered" that topic and can now move on
to the next... until we figure out that there are
still things we do not know.
It gets worse we may even tend to favor one topic over
another and again this is based on familiarity with a
topic.
Most people tend to fear BGP, IPv6, Multicast, and QoS
as a given and intially Redistristribution, even Frame
Relay and Switching...
So whatever the topic we fear, we may choose to attack
it directly or we may choose to go around that topic.
How many of us have trouble with HSRP and the bia and
say... Port Security? and for how long?
Then we figure out there are like at least 2 ways to
handle the scenario.
If we favor one then in the lab we may choose it every
time thoughlessly.
There lies the crux of the problem - thoughtlessly.
Perhaps this is a question that needs more light from
a proctor, as there may be a preference or there may
well not be.
Hmmm...
A simple problem, but one that can cause issue and
perhaps lose one points.
Same for items like etherchannel - which method? One
or another?
And let us not forget how many times we add to the
problem that is the lab, by creating scenarios that do
not need to be there in the first place.
BGP - update-source lo0 anyone? Why if it is not
called for? Perhaps it alters something that is
desired or worse not...
Hmmm...
More tales from the crypt.
What if one is asked about Frame and PPP? Would you
use a virtual template? a subinterface with p2p
specified? or even just the PPP protocol?
Now why would one assume one over the other on any
given day?
When dealing with OSPF over any given frame cloud?
Why use a certain interface type?
These are the kinds of things that may be subject to
interpretation.
We can usually figure out easily to use MD5 or plain
text, pap vs chap or ssh vs telnet.
Or at least I think "we" can.
When I think of NTP, I'll never forget a lab scenario
that I was presented with that called for using an
upstream NTP time source outside of my pod - I just
had not even considered something outside of my pod as
a conceivable part of a given scenario.
I even recall a certain lab that called for
configuring frame relay switch route statements in
order to make it work properly. Truthfully I spent
far too much time, I would have done better to lose
the points associated with it and configure something
else.
But again a proctor question: Would I lose other
points that are dependent on something if I configure
it this way versus the way asked for?
Considerations can be many, no doubt, iterpretation is
always in the eye of the beholder.
The trick is to make our eyes as keen as possible.
--- Scott Morris <smorris@ipexpert.com> wrote:
> Is there a point in noting to the public that a
> reply was private?
>
> As for the working configurations and such, you need
> to keep in mind that
> many things are not just "one rule" or "one method"
> to solve. By that, your
> solution may be perfectly functional, but if it
> doesn't do what, or ALL of
> what they ask (or breaks something else previously
> done), then it's not
> really correct, is it?
>
> THAT is one of the hardest things that candidates
> have with the exams and
> testing things. Many people have discussed that
> over the years, and
> everyone can debate working vs. non-working
> solutions all day long, but
> without violating NDA there's no way to REALLY be
> sure that what one
> candidate did (while working) was accurate per all
> of the rules in their
> workbook.
>
> The hard parts of life.
>
>
> Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service
> Provider) #4713, JNCIE
> #153, CISSP, et al.
> CCSI/JNCI-M/JNCI-J
> IPexpert VP - Curriculum Development
> IPexpert Sr. Technical Instructor
> smorris@ipexpert.com
> http://www.ipexpert.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Darby Weaver
> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 12:45 AM
> To: Ryan
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: Getting medieval this weekend - almost
> time to confirm 3rd
> attempt.
>
> Replied privately.
>
>
> --- Ryan <ryan95842@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Your comment about quota's got me thinking...a
> little on the
> > conspiracy side, maybe...
> >
> > Let's assume their is a quota system for a moment,
> and they need to
> > fail some people. So how do you fail some one with
> a working
> > configuration?
> >
> > Let's take NTP as an example (since I was reading
> the Doc CD on it
> > today) and the always questioned, "over
> configuration".
> >
> > The question of over configuration has been
> brought up numerous times
> > and the general consensus is that it won't hurt
> you.
> > UNLESS their is a quota
> > system!!!!
> >
> > So for an example, let's say you were asked to
> configure NTP peers.
> > Simple enough. But let's say you "over config" and
> configure the 'ntp
> > peer x.x.x.x'
> > command for each peer. Sure it will work, but it
> is also not fully
> > correct since you only need to configure the
> peering on one router. So
> > a Proctor grading could then say, "hmmm...this
> 'extra'
> > configuration demonstrates they
> > do not clearly understand this technology. Minus 2
> points".
> >
> > Oh look! You just failed for over configuration
> even though you had a
> > working config...
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> >
> > -Ryan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/13/07, Darby Weaver <darbyweaver@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Basically a sleepless weekend. With a lot of
> > review
> > > and soul-searching - not to mention UNIVERCD
> searching.
> > >
> > > But the goal is not only to assess but to ensure
> optimal
> > > performancce under adverse conditions as
> > well.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- Scott Morris <swm@emanon.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Or there will be holes/singes in the exam when
> > he's
> > > > done. :)
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> > > > [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> jslauer@hotmail.com
> > > > Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 9:02 PM
> > > > To: Darby Weaver; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > > Subject: Re: Getting medieval this weekend -
> > almost
> > > > time to confirm 3rd
> > > > attempt.
> > > >
> > > > if your getting medieval does that mean you're
> > going
> > > > to flog yourself? :)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > J
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Darby Weaver" <darbyweaver@yahoo.com>
> > > > To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > > Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 8:29 PM
> > > > Subject: Getting medieval this weekend -
> almost
> > time
> > > > to confirm 3rd attempt.
> > > >
> > > > > So...
> > > > >
> > > > > Training dollars are down and tide is
> high...
> > > > >
> > > > > 3 IE Mock Labs in the about 40 hours span of
> > > > time...
> > > > > (I'll be tired and worn out - been this way
> on
> > > > each of my previous lab
> > > > > attempts - got to simulate exhaustion too).
> > > > >
> > > > > 2 more already scheduled for next weekend.
> > > > >
> > > > > And one more to go.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2 CCIE Accessors are in the approval
> process.
> > > > >
> > > > > And I have a few other labs I am reviewing
> as
> > > > well.
> > > > >
> > > > > Basically, I should have a decent idea of
> > where
> > > > most weaknesses are
> > > > > and if I have or have not covered them
> > properly.
> > > > >
> > > > > So here I go again...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue May 01 2007 - 08:28:35 ART