From: Joseph Brunner (joe@affirmedsystems.com)
Date: Sat Nov 03 2007 - 18:58:49 ART
None of the proctors are bad. They are very polite. I can't blame them for
not wanting to help much. I have seen some "horror story" candidates in the
labs I've been too.
If you don't study, expect to fail.
If you don't study hard enough expect to feel like an idiot who dropped
$2,500 or so to attempt the lab.
Do not expect the proctor to be help you understand something in 8 hours you
have had your whole life to figure out.
Do not expect clarity if 7 people who did that same lab before you didn't
want it.
Do not expect the doc cd to teach you what you need to know on your day.
Do not expect to pass if you do not understand each thing on the test.
How's that?
I don't ask them ANYTHING AT ALL unless I find a direct contradiction
between the booklet and their diagrams. If I don't think I passed, I drive
back to my hotel and book the next date 30 days out and wait for my score
report.
LOL
_____
From: Biggs, Jeff (M/CIO/BIE) [mailto:JBiggs@usaid.gov]
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 2:52 PM
To: R.S CCIE; Joseph Brunner
Cc: smorris@ipexpert.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: LAB 21 BGP solution
Yeah, I have to say the two proctors I have dealt with in RTP have been
cool. I have never been treated like I hear in some of these "horror
stories" that I read about.
JB
_____
From: R.S CCIE [mailto:r.s.cciestudy@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 5:37 PM
To: Joseph Brunner
Cc: Biggs, Jeff (M/CIO/BIE); smorris@ipexpert.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: LAB 21 BGP solution
Joe,
[quote]
"read the question again" or "you're not the first person
to be tested on that rack"
[/quote]
Did they treat you like that when you were there at SJ?
Horrible!
Ed
On 11/2/07, Joseph Brunner <joe@affirmedsystems.com> wrote:
They would slam you for not knowing the simple way of local-as.
IMHO you would get "read the question again" or "you're not the first person
to be tested on that rack"
-J
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Biggs, Jeff (M/CIO/BIE)
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 9:55 AM
To: smorris@ipexpert.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: LAB 21 BGP solution
Thanks Scott. I definitely believe in he KISS principle, but could I
possibly ask the proctor to clarify this situation or would that be
"against the rules"?
Jeffrey Biggs
Sr. Network Engineer
USAID
M/CIO/BIE
240-646-5003
jbiggs@usaid.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Morris [mailto:smorris@ipexpert.com]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 10:44 AM
To: Biggs, Jeff (M/CIO/BIE); ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: LAB 21 BGP solution
IMHO that would possibly require some extra work or thinking.
Confederations change the entire structure where if you had multiple
eBGP
neighbors, it would affect them as well. Local-as affects a per-peer
configuration only which makes it a little simpler.
In this example, both would accomplish the same thing though, just be
aware
of the potential difficulties moving forward!
Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713,
JNCIE-M
#153, JNCIS-ER, CISSP, et al.
CCSI/JNCI-M/JNCI-ER
VP - Technical Training - IPexpert, Inc.
IPexpert Sr. Technical Instructor
A Cisco Learning Partner - We Accept Learning Credits!
Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
Fax: +1.810.454.0130
http://www.ipexpert.com
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto: nobody@groupstudy.com
<mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com> ] On Behalf Of
Biggs, Jeff (M/CIO/BIE)
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 9:39 AM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: LAB 21 BGP solution
I see that the solution uses LOCAL-AS NO-PREPEND, but I set it up using
CONFEDERATIONS and got the same result.
R7# show ip bgp
Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path
*> 172.16.0.0 10.10.10.6 50 0 600 i
* 10.10.10.5 100 0 600
i
*> 172.16.1.0/24 10.10.10.6 150 0 600 i
*> 172.16.2.0/24 10.10.10.6 <http://10.10.10.6> 50
0 600 i
*> 172.16.3.0/24 10.10.10.6 50 0 600 i
* 172.16.4.0/24 <http://172.16.4.0/24> 10.10.10.6 100
0 600 i
*> 10.10.10.5 50 0 600
i
*> 192.168.22.0 10.10.10.8 0 0 400 i
r7#
Would this be considered acceptable since there is no mention of not
being
able to use confederations or explicit use of local-as?
Jeffrey Biggs
Sr. Network Engineer
USAID
M/CIO/BIE
240-646-5003
jbiggs@usaid.gov <mailto:jbiggs@usaid.gov> <mailto:jbiggs@usaid.gov>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Dec 01 2007 - 06:37:28 ART