From: Ed Lui (edwlui@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Mar 06 2008 - 03:59:51 ARST
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Apr 01 2008 - 07:53:52 ART