From: Ed Lui (edwlui@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Mar 06 2008 - 02:40:06 ARST
Scott,
I appreciate your feedback. I am just trying to figure what should I learn
from the experience. Did I learn something right or just ignore it. That
really affects my learning path.
You can assume it is a certain vendor's product. But I am not going to tell
who it was. :-)
However, I appreciate all of your feedback deep from my heart.
Lui
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Vermillion" <scott_ccie_list@it-ag.com>
To: "'Ed Lui'" <edwlui@gmail.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 7:21 PM
Subject: RE: Lab exam SUCCEED or FAILED
> Lui,
>
> I did not read your entire e-mail, but enough to know that you've posted
> highly detailed information regarding a tool that people use to judge
> their
> own readiness for the real lab. In doing so, you reduce the value of the
> tool for everyone that comes after you. Ask general questions of the
> group,
> but keep the specifics between you and IE. I too took exception to some
> of
> the grading (and in glancing over things, likely because of some of the
> exact same issues). However, my philosophy settled as follows:
>
> 1. I gain nothing from getting IE to award me 80 or greater points.
> There
> is no IE IE. There is no Assessor IE. There is only the CCIE IE that
> comes
> with a number.
>
> 2. I learn from every occasion that they mark me down, whether I agree
> with
> it or not. Frankly, in some cases, it seemed as though a real stretch was
> being made to mark me down (sometimes even I lost points when what I
> "failed" to accommodate in my config was also absent from the solutions
> guide itself for crying out loud!!).
>
> But please do not post these highly detailed tasks, solutions, and grading
> details publicly. Others are paying hard-earned money to go through this
> same process, which is compromised if the particulars are known in
> advance!
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Ed
> Lui
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 7:24 PM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Lab exam SUCCEED or FAILED
>
> Hi Group,
>
> I have done a few Mock Labs to prepare my 1st $1400 rack rental in San
> Jose
> early April. And I just recieved the report for my mock lab yesterday. I
> have
> some questions really need your help.
>
> 1. I heard that the general rule in the lab is full ip reachability. So
> if
> only some routers in the lab are running BGP. And I did not bring routes
> advertised by BGP routers and/or BB routers or maybe I did not
> redistribute
> a
> loopback interface which is not included in any routing prortocol. Am I
> automatically failed the lab even I get 80% or over? Or it is not possible
> to
> get 80% or more?
>
> 2. I would like some clarification on tasks I lost points in the mock
> lab.
> I
> would really appreciate your input. The question says:
>
> . Network administrators of R6 have been noticing output drops
> accumulating
> on
> the Frame Relay link to BBI. In order to prevent this
> type of tail drop configure R6 to randomly drop packets before congestion
> happens on the Serial interface's output queue.
> . In order to ensure that critical traffic transiting your network gets
> the
> best service possible configure R6 so that critical traffic will not be
> dropped unless there are 50 packets in the output queue.
> . If there are 70 critical packets in the output queue R6 should randomly
> drop
> 2 out of every 16 of these packets.
> . In the case that there are more than 70 critical packets in the output
> queue, they should all be dropped.
>
> My answer to the task is :
>
> interface Serial0/0
> ip address 54.9.1.6 255.255.255.0
> encapsulation frame-relay
> ip summary-address rip 129.9.0.0 255.255.128.0
> random-detect
> random-detect precedence 5 50 70 8
> random-detect precedence 6 50 70 8 <------------------- EXTRA CONFIG
> random-detect precedence 7 50 70 8 <------------------- EXTRA CONFIG
> frame-relay map ip 54.9.1.254 101 broadcast
> no frame-relay inverse-arp
> My question is : Do I get points for this question with the extra lines of
> config indicated?
>
> 3. Task says:
>
> . Configure SWI and SW4 in such a way that R5 E0/0 and SW2 Fa0/20 appear
> directly connected via CDP.
> . If an additional VLAN is needed use VLAN 100.
> Layer 1 connection: R5(e0/0)====SW1====SW4=====(Fa0/20)SW2
>
> "Diagram here http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgsxsjvv_44htgh39dp"
>
> I successfully configured a layer 2 tunnel. So that R5 and SW2 see each
> other
> as neighbor according to CDP.
>
> Now, SW2 was pre-congifured with the ip address on interface vlan 58. I
> was
> trying to put the ip address on the Fa0/20 of SW2. SW2 complained about
> duplicate ip address. I then I looked the lab rule as shown below:
>
> Lab Do's and Don'ts:
> . Do not change or add any IP addresses from the initial configuration
> unless
> otherwise specified
> . Do not change any interface encapsulations unless otherwise specified
> . Do not change the console, AUX or VTY passwords or access methods unless
> otherwise specified
> . Do not use any static routes, default routes, default networks, or
> policy
> routing unless otherwise specified
> . Save your configurations often
>
> However, I lost points on this task because "IP address should've been
> configured on SW2's Fa0/20 interface as per diagram, not on Vlan58"
>
> Is it a fair game? Did I miss something. Due to points lost on this task,
> I
> also lost points on other task relied on this task. The reason is "EIGRP
> hellos should've been sent out SW2's Fa0/20 interface, not Vlan58"
>
> Please help,
>
> Lui
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Apr 01 2008 - 07:53:52 ART