From: Darby Weaver (darbyweaver@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Oct 22 2007 - 12:39:53 ART
I'd disagree about the content of the Lab not being
focused on the core topics.
I believe it is and at least as much as in the past
and arguably even more so.
Without breaking the NDA...
I'd say one who knows most of the rubik's cube of
combos is in pretty good shape for almost enough to
pass...
Of course reading those questions to interpret the
task properly is always the fun part.
But they are crystal clear sometimes.
--- CCIEin2006 <ciscocciein2006@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree.
>
> From a technical standpoint vendor workbooks are
> excellent - they help you
> learn the technologies inside out. And as Brian
> Dennis says, they try not to
> focus on stupid router tricks.
>
> Unfortunately I think the lab has become more about
> stupid router tricks
> than core technologies. Or I should say more about
> stupid task wording than
> core technologies. They expect everyone to already
> know the core
> technologies, so why bother focusing on those?
>
> Because vendors write their labs with the intention
> to teach you the
> technologies, they make the questions as
> straightforward as possible.
>
> When I pick up an IE lab I know exactly what they
> are asking me to do. The
> diagram is beautiful, full color, and easy to read
> (no I don't own stock in
> IE). Lines are clearly drawn and you know exactly
> what kind of connection to
> configure.
>
> Without breaking the NDA, lets just say in the real
> lab the diagrams are not
> so pretty. I wasted a good hour trying to figure out
> what one of the
> connections was because it was not specified in the
> lab what kind of
> connection to use and the diagram was not clear. The
> proctor was of course
> no help.
>
> Also, as others have mentioned, the wording that the
> workbook vendors use is
> very straight forward. If they want you to confiugre
> BGP confederations,
> they'll say "hey dummy, configure BGP using
> confederation id 65222 and peer
> R1 to R2 blah blah blah."
>
> In the lab they might say something like "configure
> these routers using the
> guidelines set forth in RFC 3065." Well maybe that's
> a bad example, but you
> get my drift...
>
> My 2cents.
>
>
> On 10/22/07, Gregory Gombas <ggombas@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I have a suggestion for CCIE vendors...
> >
> > With all the recent talk about ambiguity of the
> lab questions, why not
> > write a study guide called CCIE riddles? They
> don't have to have full
> > lab scenarios, just different word puzzles that
> will make you think
> > hard about what the task is asking you to do.
> >
> > Here's and example:
> > You're manager, who is not very technical, has
> tasked you to design a
> > new network in the San Jose office using routers
> R1 - R4. He has not
> > told you which routing protocol to use, but if you
> had your drothers,
> > you would configure R3 and R4 to not talk to one
> another.
> >
> > Answer:
> > Configure OSPF with R1 and R2 as DR and BDR. R3
> and R4 will be DROTHER
> > state.
> >
> > What do you guys think?
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Nov 16 2007 - 13:11:17 ART