From: Adel Karim (adelkarim@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Mar 06 2008 - 04:13:36 ARST
And this is one of the greatest things behind Mock labs, is that you get to
learn a new thing with every lab.
If you think positively in every failure, you will definitely make it. This
could be as simple as saying: I didn't make it but I have learned new topics
that I have to stress on. This is better than learning about this new topic
in the actual exam...
Don't lose hope because of failing a Mock lab, move on towards the real one
and learn from your mistakes.
Adel
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:59 AM, Ed Lui <edwlui@gmail.com> wrote:
> Scott,
>
> Very good point.
>
> I learn something new every second.
>
> Cheers,
> 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 8:55 PM
> Subject: RE: Lab exam SUCCEED or FAILED
>
>
> > Hi Lui,
> >
> > I understand. And I also understand much if not all of your
> frustration.
> > Regarding such things as conflicts between the drawing and the workbook,
> > and
> > then later even taking away points for where hellos are or are not
> > generated
> > from, this is, IMHO, beyond silly. Given that the real lab involves no
> > detailed grading report, could anyone ever reasonably be expected to
> pass
> > were the grading to be that brutal and that random? Likely not. So
> don't
> > stress over it. Accept that the true lesson is that sometimes mistakes
> in
> > one block of points cascades into other blocks of points. Conceivably
> you
> > could lose a sufficient number of points to fail with one serious
> misstep.
> > That is the lesson. Also take comfort in knowing that, unlike these
> > online
> > things, you have a proctor to pester in the $1400 version of the lab.
> ;~)
> > Certainly you noticed these inconsistencies and you would have sought
> > clarification if you could have (I know I did). Not having that ability
> > is
> > a shortcoming of the online format, but not really a damning one, IMHO.
> > Again, take it for what it's worth. Nothing more, nothing less. And
> try
> > to
> > get some feedback from your vendor if you're really hung up over
> > something.
> > I personally resisted all temptation to try to engage them regarding any
> > of
> > these specifics, much as I may have wanted to at times. I internalized
> > what
> > I could and flatly rejected the rest. Still passed. May never have
> > gotten
> > an Assessor IE nor an IE IE, but I did get the one that counts for
> > something
> > at the end of it all...
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Ed
> > Lui
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:40 PM
> > To: Scott Vermillion; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: Re: Lab exam SUCCEED or FAILED
> >
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > 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
>
-- Regards Adel Karim Mansour CCIE# 20147 R&S
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Apr 01 2008 - 07:53:52 ART