From: Darby Weaver (darbyweaver@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Jun 10 2007 - 08:55:09 ART
Not to mention the integrity of the whole program and
the objectivity of the entire program would be
meaningless.
Nope! I do not believe anyone is messing with
anyone's configs.
Now, if you ask a proctor to help you because you
think you were fortunate enough to have found a bug,
that none of the guys before you found...
Then you are subject to results of any troubleshooting
efforts that proctor may perform oto your pod on you
behalf.
I think they warn you of this before the lab starts.
They tell you - if you are right, you get the time
back, if not you do not.
They send you to the break room while all this happens
- well they say they may do this. I recall the
opposite but hey I was taking my lab and did not have
the time or curiosity to be thrown out of the lab for
eavesdropping... some might think it could be
considered cheating.
If anyone thinks they were cheated by the proctors,
make a complaint.
--- Muhammad Nasim <muhammad.nasim@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't believe that Proctor(s) can change your
> configuration during the
> lab.
>
> If Proctor do like that then it is very painful .
>
>
>
> On 6/10/07, Danshtr <danshtr@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > What is the point of doing such a thing? What does
> it tests?
> >
> > If the way Cisco test troubleshooting is by
> removing IOS feature commands
> > then its very very lame.
> >
> > If for example they would have changed mtu on ospf
> interface or configure
> > distribute list denying all eigrp updates, that I
> would consider as
> > troubleshooting.
> >
> >
> > On 6/10/07, tachin saparia <still2find@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Similar thing happened with me also.
> > >
> > > For an IOS/IP Features question, all the five
> commands were missing.
> > And
> > > I found out this thing at the last moment. And
> yes, it is not the
> > > "self-induced" thing, cos I configured the
> commands and saved the
> > > configuration twice (actually much more than
> those number of times, but
> > > before reloading saved the configuration twice,
> again).
> > >
> > > At first I also thought it is a bug, but it
> wasn't. It was a bug in
> > the
> > > form of Proctor, that is what i thought. Didn't
> face this problem in my
> > > previous attempt. Now since the second attempt
> is doomed, wonder what is
> > > going to happen the next time.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > ST
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> > > Abdul Waheed Ghaffar
> > > Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 1:31 AM
> > > To: bdennis@internetworkexpert.com;
> ishelh_mdsa@yahoo.com;
> > > ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > Subject: Re: Attack by Proctor
> > > Brian,
> > > I like this "you" under quoted :)
> > > Abdul Waheed
> > > CCIE#14010
> > > >It means that "you" created the problems and
> not the proctor.
> > > >
> > > >--
> > > >
> > > >Brian Dennis, CCIE4 #2210
> (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/SP)
> > > >bdennis@internetworkexpert.com
> > > >
> > > >Internetwork Expert, Inc.
> > > >http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
> > > >Toll Free: 877-224-8987
> > > >Direct: 775-745-6404 (Outside the US and
> Canada)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >On 6/9/07 9:22 AM, "ismail el-shalh" wrote:
> > > >
> > > Hi Scott,
> > > >
> > > What does "self-induced" means?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Ismail El-Shalh :)
> > > MMR/MDSA
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > ----- Original Message ----
> > > From: Scott Morris
> > > To: Paul Dardinski ; Yinglam Cheung
> > > ; Jinhong Im
> > > Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > Sent: Saturday, June 9, 2007 7:01:08 PM
> > > Subject: RE: Attack by Proctor
> > > >
> > > Like most of the troubleshooting within the lab,
> it may have fallen
> > > >under
> > > the category of "self-induced".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Scott Morris, CCIE4
> (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713,
> > > >JNCIE
> > > #153, CISSP, et al.
> > > CCSI/JNCI-M/JNCI-J
> > > VP - Technical Training - IPexpert, Inc.
> > > IPexpert Sr. Technical Instructor
> > > >
> > > A Cisco Learning Partner - We Accept Learning
> Credits!
> > > >
> > > smorris@ipexpert.com
> > > >
> > > Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
> > > Fax: +1.810.454.0130
> > > http://www.ipexpert.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> > > Of
> > > >Paul
> > > Dardinski
> > > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 11:27 AM
> > > To: Yinglam Cheung; Jinhong Im
> > > Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > Subject: RE: Attack by Proctor
> > > >
> > > Hrmm.....don't remember a proctor even having
> the slightest interest
> > > in
> > > >my
> > > configs during any lab attempt....
> > > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> > > Of
> > > Yinglam Cheung
> > > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 11:12 AM
> > > To: Jinhong Im
> > > Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > Subject: Re: Attack by Proctor
> > > >
> > > I seldom wrote to the group, but the subject
> line caught me to take
> > > a
> > > >look.
> > > >
> > > It would be interesting to know why proctor
> would get on your router
> > > to
> > > check your configurations. AFAIK, proctors don't
> check candidates'
> > > configs during the testing time. Did you suspect
> a bug and ask him
> > > to
> > > >check?
> > > I'd have asked proctor why he erased some
> configs if I were you.
> > > >
> > > In any case you can write to ccie@cisco.com or
> Cisco Certification
> > > >Support
> > > and I believe you can fill out feedbacks after
> finishing your lab.
> > > >
> > > Overall I feel proctors in my CCIE lab
> experience are very
> > > professional.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > regards,
> > > Yinglam
> > > >
> > > ----- Original Message ----
> > > From: Jinhong Im
> > > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > Sent: Friday, June 8, 2007 4:58:38 AM
> > > Subject: Attack by Proctor
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Hi GS,
> > > >
> > > Today I took my 4th R&S test.
> > > After I checked all my configuration I found the
> proctor had changed
> > > too
> > > many things, left about 20 minutes.
> > > I really astonished because of too severe
> attacks by the proctor. He
> > > >blew
> > > out the whole BGP configuration on a switch and
> so many other
> > > >configurations
> > > I made. I tried to recover all them, but I
> couldn't have time to
> > > check
> > > >it
> > > again because the proctor was counting time. So
> I am not sure it all
> > > the
> > > configurations were correct, and finally I found
> one missing
> > > >configuration
> > > and I couldn't be able to complete it because He
> was saying time was
> > > >over.
> > > >
> > > I think it is too severe attack to cope.
> > > I would like to know if there is a way to let
> Cisco know that there
> > > will
> > > >be
> > > few candidates to protect themselves from the
> attack.
> > > >
> > > Any opinion?
> > > >
> > > Regards
> > > /JH
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please?
> Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user
> > > panel and lay it on us.
> > >
> > >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jul 01 2007 - 17:24:48 ART