From: Gary Duncanson (gary.duncanson@googlemail.com)
Date: Fri Sep 21 2007 - 16:47:59 ART
Narbik,
I agree with your approach, which is why, over the years, I have read a ton of
books and looked at technologies in isolation and great detail. An entire
evening looking at SRTT for example. How the long winter hours flew by.
In 2002 I worked the labs in Hutnik and Saterlees book. This was one of my
preparations of technologies in isolation. Get that sort of time under your
belt and then do your mock labs. I should add that IPExpert does also include
some technology specific labs as well as multiprotocol labs.
IMHO the amount/level of theoretical discussion on protocols on GS has reduced
a little over the years. Back in the day I had a rucksack full of books and
horrid white papers (like the WAN Technologies guide off cisco.com) which you
beat to death on the commutes to work. Then you scoured archives on GS for
better understanding and followed threads about mechanisms. If you had a bit
of equipment at home, you labbed what you could and asked for help/insights on
the list. Time consuming but you learned a lot by trial and error. In less
time I reckon you can blitz through a professional labbook but without the
grounding in rudiments how much do you really learn and understand?
There is less reading and a lot of memorization going on and a lack of
rudimentary understanding in some candidates. This isn't a new thing, but
perhaps the situation is worse now there are so many mock labs to choose
from.
Perhaps some people dive into mocks before labbing out the technologies from
(for example) Caslow and Doyle and the technology guides on cisco.com like we
used to?
Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: Narbik Kocharians
To: Gary Duncanson
Cc: Guyler, Rik ; cristian.ionescu@omnilogic.ro ; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: ..going to brussels....failed
Sometimes this is the end result of doing too many Mock labs, have you ever
asked yourself what is it that you learned when you completed a given mock
lab? I bet what you learned was mostly what you should do if and when you are
in that specific situation.
I honestly believe that before doing bunch of mock labs, you need to do
unbelievable number of protocol specific labs, that way you will see and learn
the behavior of each protocol individually and not in a set topology or
scenario. Once you have done bunch of protocol specific labs, then you should
spend time on the mock labs. This way you will enjoy and learn few tricks in
the mock lab and appreciate what the author was trying to do. You can almost
guess the next step/s.
You need to learn and NOT memorize, you need to know and you need to know
most if not all of the possible ways that a given task can be accomplished,
you need to know the theory behind each protocol, the little differences
between them and how each item in the theory translates into configuration
commands, its only then that you can make an educated guess as to what to do
or which way you should configure a given task.
After doing what I just recommended, don't you think you should be able to
make better decision as to which solution to use and why a given solution
should be cross eliminated?
Mock labs are great only after you have done lots of protocol specific labs.
Let's say today you need to practice BGP, with mock lab work book/s, you
need to go through 3 4 hours of configuration before you get to the BGP
section, and once you get there, you probably do three to five tasks and you
are done. This is why I always say that you need to do protocol specific labs,
because with a work book that takes apart each protocol individually, if you
wanted to do BGP, you would go to the BGP section and do 200 pages of BGP labs
and BGP labs ONLY.
Another issue with doing the mock labs and mock labs only is that your focus
is divided into the protocols and the topology, have a look at the topologies
in anyone's mock labs (Including mine), it's pretty complicated, when that
happens, your focus automatically gets divided into the protocol and the
topology, whereas, with protocol specific work books that are written in a
very simple topology, your focus is on the protocol and protocol ONLY.
I do not want to start a war here and I honestly respect other instructor's
philosophy and knowledge so please don't misunderstand me.
Once again every vendor has their own opinion and philosophy and this is
mine.
DO YOUR PROTOCOL SPECIFIC WORK BOOKS BEFORE DOING THE MOCK LAB WORK BOOKS
and you will see the difference.
Its simply the BEST way to study.
On 9/21/07, Gary Duncanson <gary.duncanson@googlemail.com> wrote:
I'm using Scott's lab workbook v9.0 from IPExpert. It's an excellent
product.
Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guyler, Rik" <rguyler@shp-dayton.org>
To: "'Cristian Ionescu'" < cristian.ionescu@omnilogic.ro>;
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 12:32 PM
Subject: RE: ..going to brussels....failed
> Christian, your score report should give you some idea as to what areas
to
> study a little more. As it's been said so many times, it sounds like
you
> were right there on the edge of passing but maybe some of the
requirements
> or interpretations caught you up. If you received a 70 on the lab then
> you
> did a lot of things right so technically you may be where you need to
be.
>
> I know IE and IPExpert both have strategy lectures. Since you mention
IE,
> why not see what Scott might have to help you over the hump? Sometimes
it
> just takes a little different perspective...see things from a different
> angle.
>
> Rik
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Cristian Ionescu
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 5:18 AM
> To: Cisco certification
> Subject: ..going to brussels....failed
>
> Hy to all
>
> As i promise i came with some info.
>
> I was close in my opinion (70) and until now i do not know where i was
> wrong. Maybe i did not do it in "cisco way".
> For example in IPV6 i've used link-local address put it manually by
> me....(it is more easy in routing protocols)...
>
> I finish one hour earlier and have time to recheck twice and reload
> everything. After the reload BGP was perfect so....everything was ok.
> I am very upset because it was an easy scenario......compare to IEWB it
> was
> nothing.....
> i now that i can't say something about it.....officially....but believe
my
> it was a difficulty of 3 !!!!!
>
> .....dame it.....i should get it....
>
>
> Now everybody tries to encourage me to go further but i am a little
> confuse...i want to get a new date until December but it is difficult. I
> do
> not know if i will get such an easy scenario.
> I do not know what to re-read, re-do....etc...
>
> I will keep watch this forum....it is a good source of info for me..
>
> Cristian
>
> This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use
of
> the
> individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
information
> that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt
from
> disclosure under applicable law or may constitute as attorney work
> product.
> If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
> use,
> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is
strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, notify us
> immediately by telephone and
> (i) destroy this message if a facsimile or (ii) delete this message
> immediately if this is an electronic communication.
>
> Thank you,
> OMNILOGIC Team
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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
--
Narbik Kocharians
CCIE# 12410 (R&S, SP, Security)
CCSI# 30832
www.Net-WorkBooks.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Oct 06 2007 - 12:01:15 ART