RE: CCIE lab and how tasks are graded - example.

From: Edison Ortiz (edisonmortiz@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Sep 19 2007 - 19:47:36 ART


If the script fails you, the proctor will verify if you provided a working
solution and met the requirements.
It's very hard to have another working solution in the R&S Lab. The lab is
structured in such a way that
the solution will be the one the script is looking for.

Edison Ortiz
Routing and Switching, CCIE # 17943

-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Joseph Brunner
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 5:57 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: CCIE lab and how tasks are graded - example.

Assume there are multiple ways to solve a single task. I heard a "script"
checks the candidate's configs against a known good config solution for the
lab. Candidate's configs that don't pass the script check lose points. the
proctor gets a report from the script, and the script's report is good
enough for the proctor. If the script says FAIL the proctor starts on the
next candidates configs (great service for $1,400 bucks and 3,000 mile
flight, huh?)

 

Could someone please provide insight into come out on top in this process.
How do I know which way I should go if there are multiple correct solutions?
I will give an example. Which would the "script" probably like, which one
would it flag for grading proctor analysis? Could the script be nice, and
actually "accept" both?

 

Task -

 

"All packets larger than 1250 bytes arrving on Router6 G0/0 should be set to
precedence 3."

 

 

-two solutions come to mind.

 

Mqc

____

 

class-map match-all packets

 match packet length min 1251

 

policy-map largepackets

 class packets

   set precedence flash

class class-default

 

int g0/0

service-policy input largepackets

 

 

Policy routing

____________

 

route-map largepackets permit 10

 match length 1251 1500

 set ip precedence flash

 

int g0/0
ip policy route-map largepackets

 

Thanks,

 

Joe



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Oct 06 2007 - 12:01:13 ART