From: Gary Duncanson (gary.duncanson@googlemail.com)
Date: Mon Jun 18 2007 - 19:34:21 ART
Well some of us still practice physical hookups (for those of us with racks
at home) but yes that's off the lab now!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Morris" <smorris@ipexpert.com>
To: "'Gary Duncanson'" <gary.duncanson@googlemail.com>;
<smorris@ipexpert.com>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 8:48 PM
Subject: RE: RE: RE : Attack by Proctor
> Yup, it was at the end. I'm sure some people did fail based on that.
> Although, my opinion was that if I were working on the network for the
> last
> day and a half, there wasn't anything that could be done to it to surprise
> me. :)
>
> On the other hand, I also taught CIT (former Troubleshooting class), so
> they
> weren't as mean as I was! But different people think differently, and the
> scope of troubleshooting went beyond the lab topics, so many struggled
> with
> it. (remember, we had to do physical hookups back then too!)
>
>
> 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
> Gary
> Duncanson
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 3:11 PM
> To: smorris@ipexpert.com
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: RE: RE : Attack by Proctor
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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