RE: RE: RE : Attack by Proctor

From: Salau, Yemi (yemi.salau@siemens.com)
Date: Thu Jun 21 2007 - 05:45:34 ART


While a part of me says we're taking this Brussel norm too far, another
can't seem to resist that "changing the configs" 1hr or 30mins before
the end of the lab is totally unacceptable.

If Cisco wants to include this as part of the exam, let them go public
on this, also let this be done in all the lab centres, Brussel's
candidate shouldn't be the only one to experience this ... it's just
unfair and at the end of the day, over 100 pass CCIEs in other centres
in days, while they kept failing people from Brussels intentionally.

I'm not defending anyone as I can only speak for myself, If Cisco want
to add this to their "Troubleshooting" tactics, then test-running this
concept in just only 1 centre is unfair. I'm not sayinh what the
Proctors are doing is wrong and I'm not justifying it either. All I'm
saying is ... be fair at what you do ... but, what goes around, surely
comes around!

Many Thanks

Yemi Salau

________________________________

From: Shakeer AC [mailto:shakeerac@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 4:53 AM
To: Joe Rinehart
Cc: Salau, Yemi; CCIE SG
Subject: Re: RE: RE : Attack by Proctor

Hey Guys I am the new victim yesterday IN BRUSSELS.

I had finshed the configs by lunch time. I checked once and everythng
was working.

The second time i checked i found the the redistribute has been taken
off from ospf.

also the multicast ip's was nnot reachable all of a sudden. one of the
BB ip's got changed.

All these were last one hour changes. So guys better lock the proctor
from the lab before you start the exam.

I have been reading lots of mail on this but this is the fact .

Whatso ever this is not professional from Cisco and lets hope this will
end soon.

Regards,
Shakeer

On 6/19/07, Joe Rinehart <jjrinehart@hotmail.com> wrote:

        Well what goes around comes around...maybe that's why it took me
FIVE
        attempts :)

        -----Original Message-----
        From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On
Behalf Of
        Salau, Yemi
        Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 7:07 AM
        To: Joe Rinehart; CCIE SG
        Subject: RE: RE: RE : Attack by Proctor

        In the Lab, He who brings down his Layer-2 should also be the
one to bring
        it back up... At least he will find this out one way or the
other.
        Although I suppose there are those who use CCIE Lab Racks as
another
        collection of Practise Labs.

        With regards to Proctors, I have decided to be diplomatic, maybe
when I get
        my magic numbers I wouldn't .... But for now, Proctors are my
best friends
        in this Business :-) lol!

        Many Thanks

        Yemi Salau

        -----Original Message-----
        From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On
Behalf Of Joe
        Rinehart
        Sent: 18 June 2007 18:34
        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
>>
>>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jul 01 2007 - 17:24:50 ART