From: Darby Weaver (ccie.weaver@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Jan 13 2009 - 22:17:37 ARST
Honestly though the only person who I've seen as a trainer who any stats and
conclusions can be drawn from is that guy from Germany.
He literally has smiling faces with CCIE Digits tacked onto them.
If you count them and do the math for his 3-week classes he is about the
closest person I can think of who has even close to perfect average.
Now the flip side:
1. Student who I did the mock labs with left his class and passed the lab
with another week's usage of the instructor's racks per the deal.
2. One other student just emailed me and is going back to visit Mr. H. for
the 3rd time - 3 weeks each and his company is paying for the training so I
guess he can go till he passes. I don't think this is normal though. But I
think my friend is a manager a client-company too.
It all depends on the student too.
Then again:
Some people I know reported back they did not think much of his teaching
style and a 1-2 of them trained with Narbik and loved him by comparison.
Note: the guy who passed above also trained with Narbik and had good things
to say but I think he said he wished the classes were longer in duration at
Narbik's as I recall. If I recall correctly he may have been to one or more
othe trainers too.
The truth is a lot of candidates use more than one workbook or trainer.
And there is the case where some of the vendors have even used the same
people to write some of their materials - well how many people are there who
want to write labs all day anyway? One side does not advertise who's
writing their labs since ghost writers don't get to get the credit for their
work and the ghost writers want to work more and so solicit themselves to
other vendors as well.
So things get a little murky.
Who's writing for who? Who's being true? And Who don't even write
anymore?
And then when one vendor suspects or knows for sure about a promiscuous lab
workbook writer... Hmm.... Things happen too it seems.
And we live in such a small world for such stuff.
Funny how the ball rolls.
On 1/13/09, Scott Morris <swm@emanon.com> wrote:
>
> :)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Narbik Kocharians
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 4:45 PM
> To: Darby Weaver
> Cc: Tyson Scott; Pavel Bykov; Hobbs; mike jones; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: Frame-relay Fragmentation!
>
> hahahaha
>
> I should have said 72.4 percent passing on thier first attempt. I guess its
> like the 500 pages of QOS.
>
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Darby Weaver <ccie.weaver@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Actually,
> >
> > If you really wanna know how the "words" might look you got a few
> options:
> >
> > 1. Check CCO for the Tech Tips where the issues affected someone and how
> > Cisco had to deal with it -
> >
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk1077/technologies_tech_note09186a00801142d
> e.shtml
> >
> > 2. The CCIE Accessor.
> >
> > 3. Cisco Press CCIE Lab Books and Practical Studies Books.
> >
> > 4. Cisco Press - Frame Relay
> >
> > Maybe it's time to post the list of books you can use in lieu of a class
> > for those on a tight budget or who don't have corporate funding.
> >
> >
> > Verify on both sides of the link:
> >
> > R5#sh frame-relay fragment interface s1/0 501
> >
> > fragment size 200 fragment type end-to-end
> > in fragmented pkts 4511 out fragmented pkts 86
> > in fragmented bytes 109183 out fragmented bytes 10797
> > in un-fragmented pkts 162 out un-fragmented pkts 88
> > in un-fragmented bytes 10808 out un-fragmented bytes 5952
> > in assembled pkts 1053 out pre-fragmented pkts 130
> > in assembled bytes 94707 out pre-fragmented bytes 16317
> > in dropped reassembling pkts 0 out dropped fragmenting pkts
> > 0
> > in DE fragmented pkts 4511 out DE fragmented pkts 0
> > in DE un-fragmented pkts 162 out DE un-fragmented pkts 0
> > in timeouts 0
> > in out-of-sequence fragments 0
> > in fragments with unexpected B bit set 0
> > in fragments with skipped sequence number 0
> > out interleaved packets 0
> > R5#sh frame-relay fragment
> > interface dlci frag-type size in-frag out-frag dropped-frag
> > Se1/0 501 end-to-end 200 4519 86 0
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 1/12/09, Tyson Scott <tscott@ipexpert.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Narbik,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> It is definitely great to know what frame-relay fragmentation does and
> to
> >> see how it affects traffic sent thru it. I think that your example is
> >> great
> >> for that. But the question is to know when it is necessary. Most tasks
> >> are
> >> not specifically going to tell a student to do fragmentation but the
> >> student
> >> needs to understand based on the requirements of the question that they
> >> need
> >> to do it.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> But really that was a great example of configuring it Narbik.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Tyson Scott - CCIE #13513 R&S and Security
> >>
> >> Technical Instructor - IPexpert, Inc.
> >>
> >>
> >> Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
> >> Cell: +1.248.504.7309
> >> Fax: +1.810.454.0130
> >> Mailto: tscott@ipexpert.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Join our free online support and peer group communities:
> >> http://www.IPexpert.com/communities <
> http://www.ipexpert.com/communities>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> IPexpert - The Global Leader in Self-Study, Classroom-Based, Video On
> >> Demand
> >> and Audio Certification Training Tools for the Cisco CCIE R&S Lab, CCIE
> >> Security Lab, CCIE Service Provider Lab , CCIE Voice Lab and CCIE
> Storage
> >> Lab Certifications.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Narbik Kocharians [mailto:narbikk@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 3:34 PM
> >> To: Pavel Bykov
> >> Cc: Tyson Scott; Hobbs; mike jones; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >> Subject: Re: Frame-relay Fragmentation!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> You should NOT look for words, you should focus on knowing what it does
> >> and
> >> where to use it and how and where it helps.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The topology is as follows:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
> R1---S0/0--10.1.12.1/24-----------------Frame-relay--------------------10.1.
> >> 12.2/24--S0/0----R2
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> R1's Loopback is 1.1.1.1/8
> >>
> >> R2's Loopback is 2.2.2.2/8
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Task 1
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Configure Frame-relay Fragmentation between the two routers such that
> the
> >> largest packet size is 80 Bytes.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Both Routers:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Rx(config)#interface S0/0
> >>
> >> Rx(config-if)#Frame-relay fragment 80 end-to-end
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> To verify the configuration:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On R1
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> R1#Show frame-relay pvc 102
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> PVC Statistics for interface Serial1/0 (Frame Relay DTE)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> DLCI = 102, DLCI USAGE = LOCAL, PVC STATUS = ACTIVE, INTERFACE =
> Serial0/0
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> input pkts 0 output pkts 0 in bytes 0
> >>
> >> out bytes 0 dropped pkts 0 in pkts dropped 0
> >>
> >>
> >> out pkts dropped 0 out bytes dropped 0
> >>
> >> in FECN pkts 0 in BECN pkts 0 out FECN pkts 0
> >>
> >> out BECN pkts 0 in DE pkts 0 out DE pkts 0
> >>
> >> out bcast pkts 0 out bcast bytes 0
> >>
> >> 5 minute input rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec
> >>
> >> 5 minute output rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec
> >>
> >> pvc create time 00:29:43, last time pvc status changed 00:28:34
> >>
> >> fragment type end-to-end fragment size 80
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Note the output of the above show command reveals that Frame-relay
> >> fragmentation is enabled and the type is set to end-to-end which is
> FRF.12
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> To test the configuration:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On R1
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> R1#Ping 10.1.12.2 size 80 repeat 1
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Type escape sequence to abort.
> >>
> >> Sending 1, 80-byte ICMP Echos to 10.1.12.2, timeout is 2 seconds:
> >>
> >> !
> >>
> >> Success rate is 100 percent (1/1), round-trip min/avg/max = 64/64/64 ms
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> R1#Show frame-relay fragment 102
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> interface dlci frag-type size in-frag out-frag
> >> dropped-frag
> >>
> >> Se0/0 102 end-to-end 80 2 2
> >> 0
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Note the fragmentation size is set to 80 Bytes, and the size of the ping
> >> packet was 80 Bytes as well, but the output of the above show command
> >> reveals that there were two fragmented packets. This is because the size
> >> of
> >> the frame-relay header was NOT considered when the size of the ping
> packet
> >> was configured. The actual size of the frame-relay header is 2 Bytes,
> and
> >> as
> >> a result of that, the size of the ping packet was 82 Bytes, therefore, 2
> >> fragmented packets were generated.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> To test this further:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On R1
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> R1#clear counters
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Clear "show interface" counters on all interfaces [confirm]
> >>
> >> R1#
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> R1#Ping 10.1.12.2 size 78 repeat 1
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Type escape sequence to abort.
> >>
> >> Sending 1, 78-byte ICMP Echos to 10.1.12.2, timeout is 2 seconds:
> >>
> >> !
> >>
> >> Success rate is 100 percent (1/1), round-trip min/avg/max = 40/40/40 ms
> >>
> >> R1#
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> R1#Show frame-relay fragment 102
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> interface dlci frag-type size in-frag out-frag
> >> dropped-frag
> >>
> >> Se0/0 102 end-to-end 80 0 0
> >> 0
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Note the above Show command reveals that the ICMP packet was NOT
> >> fragmented;
> >> the size of the ICMP packet is 78 Bytes plus the two Bytes of
> Frame-relay
> >> header equals to 80 Bytes, therefore, it does not need to get
> fragmented.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> To test the configuration further:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On R1
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> R1#Ping 10.1.12.2 size 79 repeat 1
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Type escape sequence to abort.
> >>
> >> Sending 1, 79-byte ICMP Echos to 10.1.12.2, timeout is 2 seconds:
> >>
> >> !
> >>
> >> Success rate is 100 percent (1/1), round-trip min/avg/max = 60/60/60 ms
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> R1#Show frame-relay fragment 102
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> interface dlci frag-type size in-frag out-frag
> >> dropped-frag
> >>
> >> Se0/0 102 end-to-end 80 2 2
> >> 0
> >>
> >> R1#
> >>
> >>
> >> i hope this helped.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Pavel Bykov <slidersv@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Also look for "Large data packets" and "voice packets are prioritized
> >> although are waiting behind large packets that take long to send out"
> >>
> >> Tyson, correction: Reducing delay, since there is no way to prevent it
> :)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Tyson Scott <tscott@ipexpert.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Mike,
> >> >
> >> > Or if the question talks about preventing serialization delay.
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> >
> >> > Tyson Scott - CCIE #13513 R&S and Security
> >> > Technical Instructor - IPexpert, Inc.
> >> >
> >> > Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
> >> > Cell: +1.248.504.7309
> >> > Fax: +1.810.454.0130
> >> > Mailto: tscott@ipexpert.com
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> Of
> >> > Hobbs
> >> > Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 11:54 AM
> >> > To: mike jones
> >> > Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >> > Subject: Re: Frame-relay Fragmentation!
> >> >
> >> > Off the top of my head, maybe something like "maximum packet size"...
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 9:50 AM, mike jones <ccie1q2008@hotmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Group,
> >> > > What key words in a tasks will lead you to frame-relay
> >> fragmentation
> >> > as
> >> > > the solution?
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks!
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Mike
> >> > >
> >> > > _________________________________________________________________
> >> > > Windows Live : Keep your life in sync.
> >> > >
> >>
> http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_012009
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> <http://www.ccie.net/>
> >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> _______________________________________________________________________
> >> > > Subscription information may be found at:
> >> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net <http://www.ccie.net/
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> _______________________________________________________________________
> >> > Subscription information may be found at:
> >> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net <http://www.ccie.net/
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> _______________________________________________________________________
> >> > Subscription information may be found at:
> >> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Pavel Bykov
> >> ----------------
> >> Don't forget to help stopping the braindumps, use of which reduces value
> >> of
> >> your certifications. Sign the petition at
> http://www.stopbraindumps.com/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net <http://www.ccie.net/>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________________________________
> >> Subscription information may be found at:
> >> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Narbik Kocharians
> >> CCSI#30832, CCIE# 12410 (R&S, SP, Security)
> >> www.MicronicsTraining.com <http://www.micronicstraining.com/>
> >> www.Net-Workbooks.com <http://www.net-workbooks.com/>
> >> Sr. Technical Instructor
> >>
> >>
> >> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________________________________
> >> Subscription information may be found at:
> >> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Narbik Kocharians
> CCSI#30832, CCIE# 12410 (R&S, SP, Security)
> www.MicronicsTraining.com
> www.Net-Workbooks.com
> Sr. Technical Instructor
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Mar 01 2009 - 09:43:37 ARST