From: Brian Dennis (bdennis@internetworkexpert.com)
Date: Sat Sep 22 2007 - 02:12:14 ART
This is the reason we have taught the IE Advanced Technologies Class
(IEATC-RS) since we first started Internetwork Expert 3 years ago.
But we still see people who think they don't need to learn the
technologies and skip this class or the CoD version. Not learning
the technologies covered in the R&S lab at a CCIE level is one of the
biggest reasons people fail the lab.
Brian Dennis, CCIE4 #2210 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/SP)
bdennis@internetworkexpert.com
Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
Toll Free: 877-224-8987
Direct: 775-745-6404 (Outside the US and Canada)
On Sep 21, 2007, at 12:47 PM, Gary Duncanson wrote:
> 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
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Oct 06 2007 - 12:01:15 ART