From: Gary Duncanson (gary.duncanson@googlemail.com)
Date: Sat Dec 22 2007 - 22:18:18 ART
Brian,
Assessor labs are graded by a 3rd party?
That blows. I thought it was 'Cisco Assessor'
BR/
Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Dennis" <bdennis@internetworkexpert.com>
To: "Michael Stewart" <mstewart350@gmail.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 1:09 AM
Subject: Re: Cisco Assessor Help
>A proctor looks at every lab no matter what the score. Also keep in mind
> that the Accessor Lab is graded by a 3rd party and not Cisco.
>
> 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)
>
>
>>----- Original Message -----
> Subject: Cisco Assessor Help
> Date: Sat, December 22, 2007 13:52
> From: "Michael Stewart" <mstewart350@gmail.com>
>
>> Hello Experts,
>>
>> I took my first Cisco Assessor Lab this morning, and am pretty excited
> about
>> the results! It is a good eye-opener on how tasks are graded, and how
> points
>> are assigned.
>>
>> I did have one issue with a solution regarding BGP and next-hop-self.
>> Instead of using this on a neighbor command, I just inserted a "set ip
>> next-hop peer-address" into the route-map which was needed for another
>> task
>> (dealing with setting MED out to this same neighbor). The only
> constraint on
>> the task was to accomplish this by not re-configuring any other router.
>>
>> My question is whether or not this would get marked wrong in the real lab
>> also...?
>> During my studying with vendor WBs, I would always assume if you get the
>> same results, the solution is ok. Now my eyes are opened to the fact that
>> scripts do not always check every answer!
>>
>> I think I read/heard that if you are within a certain range of 80% (3
> pts or
>> so), your lab gets manually checked... is that correct? If so, what
>> happens
>> if there are 2 or 3 task solutions which the script does not account for,
>> and you get pushed out of this range. I assume you pay the re-grade if
>> you
>> feel like you really did enough to pass!
>>
>>
>> A follow-up question to the group is to whether or not my answer, is
> indeed,
>> correct?
>>
>> Here is the answer per the Assessor:
>>
>> router bgp 1
>> *neighbor 100.1.65.6 next-hop-self
>> * no synchronization
>> bgp log-neighbor-changes
>> neighbor 100.1.1.1 remote-as 1
>> neighbor 100.1.1.1 update-source Loopback0
>> neighbor 100.1.65.6 remote-as 2
>> neighbor 100.1.65.6 route-map TO_R6 out
>> no auto-summary
>> !
>> !
>> !
>> route-map TO_R6 permit 10
>> set metric 500
>> !
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is my answer:
>>
>> router bgp 1
>> no synchronization
>> bgp log-neighbor-changes
>> neighbor 100.1.1.1 remote-as 1
>> neighbor 100.1.1.1 update-source Loopback0
>> neighbor 100.1.65.6 remote-as 2
>> neighbor 100.1.65.6 route-map TO_R6 out
>> no auto-summary
>> !
>> !
>> !
>> route-map TO_R6 permit 10
>> set metric 500
>> set ip next-hop peer-address
>>
>>
>> Any/all input is welcome!
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Michael
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jan 01 2008 - 12:04:31 ARST