From: Gary Duncanson (gary.duncanson@googlemail.com)
Date: Mon Jun 18 2007 - 16:10:44 ART
Scott,
Troubleshooting used to be at the end wasn't it?
I recall some years back discussing with you why the troubleshooting section
got dropped. Was it not the case that for many these were compartively easy
marks, on the grounds that if you spent best part of two days building a
network and knew what you were doing you were pretty likely to find the
things that got introduced and fix them?
Did many fail on the troubleshooting section?
I wonder if anyone got their virtual ring reconfigured? Must have been
painful ;)
Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Morris" <smorris@ipexpert.com>
To: "'Guyler, Rik'" <rguyler@shp-dayton.org>; "'Joe Rinehart'"
<jjrinehart@hotmail.com>; "'Gary Duncanson'" <gary.duncanson@googlemail.com>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 7:30 PM
Subject: RE: RE: RE : Attack by Proctor
> It was also very well known though, that they took your topology and would
> mess things up in new and exciting ways.
>
> It's a huge mental difference to have known quantities of things going on
> versus a random set of things as you are in the middle of other stuff.
>
> Just a touch different there!
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Guyler, Rik [mailto:rguyler@shp-dayton.org]
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 1:59 PM
> To: 'Joe Rinehart'; 'Gary Duncanson'; 'Scott Morris'
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: RE: RE : Attack by Proctor
>
> Hmmm...sounds like personal experience to me Joe. ;-)
>
> Besides, didn't the Proctors always used to "attack" your network on day
> two
> when the older two-day format existed? I think they called it the
> "Troublshooting" portion of the lab.
>
> Rik
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Joe
> Rinehart
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 1:34 PM
> To: 'Gary Duncanson'; 'Scott Morris'
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: RE: RE : Attack by Proctor
>
> Although occasionally a lab candidate will do something unintentional like
> setting PAGP unconditionally that subsequently takes down the entire Layer
> 2
> switching backbone in the lab...
>
> Although that is just an anecdotal tale :)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Gary
> Duncanson
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 8:24 AM
> To: Scott Morris
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: RE: RE : Attack by Proctor
>
> I think this is just another manifestation of 'The Fear'.
>
> Proctors do not sabotage or screw around with lab candidates
> configurations.
>
> They do read groupstudy though :)
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Morris" <smorris@ipexpert.com>
> To: "'Digital Yemeni'" <digital.yemeni@gmail.com>;
> <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 1:41 PM
> Subject: RE: RE: RE : Attack by Proctor
>
>
>> CCIE Ghost Whisperers? ;)
>>
>> While personally, I would expect the troubleshooting portion to expand
>> a bit, the ideas where I see it going have nothing to do with live,
>> intermittant, random things being injected. That would be unfair on
>> many levels.
>>
>>
>> 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 Digital Yemeni
>> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 8:31 AM
>> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>> Subject: Re: RE: RE : Attack by Proctor
>>
>> While it's VERY unreasonable for something like this to happen, the
>> only worry is that spreading of these rumors may make them come for
>> real one day!! :) I guess some guys are just stressed before even
>> entering the lab!!
>> ;-) If anyone has this amount of stress before even getting into the
>> real thing i would assure you that he/she can see ghosts on the lab
>> booklet as well! :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/18/07, Scott Morris <smorris@ipexpert.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> While obviously it's hard to track things like that, I'd venture to
>>> say there's nothing the proctor has to gain by doing things like that
>>> mid-config. If they wanted to make you fail, they could just wait
>>> until the end of the exam and change whatever they felt like changing.
>>>
>>> While troubleshooting IS indeed part of the testing process, it's
>>> fairly well spelled out. And from what I remember reading in
>>> Maurillio's Ask-the-Expert Q&A session on NetPro, it was specifically
>>> mentioned about the problems in startup configs and not ongoing
>>> changes
>> introduced.
>>>
>>> Depending on your process of configuration, (e.g. cut 'n' paste) I'd
>>> say there's a myriad of possibilities to introduce errors like that
>>> all by yourself without any outside intervention.
>>>
>>> No offense to anyone who mentions this has happened to them, but it's
>>> just not plausible. If the proctor had it out for you, in that they
>>> wanted you to fail, there are so many other ways to do it without
>>> introducing the potential of getting caught that this makes no sense.
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 wjoh71@gmail.com
>>> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 3:55 AM
>>> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>>> Subject: Re: RE: RE : Attack by Proctor
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I also had the same problem. 30 minutes before the end of exam in
>>> BRUSSELS, I noticed a couple of changes in the routers and switches.
>>> For example,
>>>
>>> 1. network statement (ip address ) under ospf got changed.
>>> 2. area 1 nssa kept in the other router though i configured in the
>>> right router.
>>> 3. additional eigrp process was running in the router.
>>>
>>> I am not sure whether these are part of exam troubleshooting or these
>>> are introduced by the proctors intentionally to make the candidates
>>> to
>> fail.
>>> Could any one comment on this?.
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> Joh
>>>
>>> _____________________________________________________________________
>>> _ _ 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best Regards!
>> Digital, CCIE# to be assigned by Cisco when it collects enough $$ out
>> of me!
>> :p
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> _ 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 Jul 01 2007 - 17:24:49 ART