It will be very helping, if we can get answers from vendors that what they
have done regarding this shift of "core".
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Roy Waterman <roy.waterman_at_gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi Andrew
>
> Bad luck this time round.
> It does seem like the shift of focus is throwing everyone off who took the
> lab thus far.
> The question does appear to be...is any vendor currently able to prepare a
> candidate appropriately for the new blueprint?
> There is nothing wrong with the current material and I respect all vendors.
> I am just wondering if perhaps it will take time for the vendors to
> reallign
> themselves according to the new blueprint focus.
> Or perhaps all it means is a trip to the lab 1st time to learn what you
> need
> to do, and then to go back and hopefully have a much better chance of
> passing.
>
> You haven't failed Andrew, you just haven't passed yet.
> Thanks for the feedback & good luck in your next attempt.
>
>
> 2009/10/30 ALL From_NJ <all.from.nj_at_gmail.com>
>
> > Hey team,
> >
> > I was hoping for a better post ... Yesterday I took the lab and failed.
> > Some thoughts and comments, and hopefully you all will find these
> helpful.
> > Sorry for the long post.
> >
> > *** OEQs - passed this part.
> >
> > - I found these to be fairly interesting. 3 were pretty easy and 1 was a
> > bit hard IMO. The hard one really belonged to another CCIE track, and
> not
> > the R&S ... I gave it my best guess, but since I was not studying for
> this
> > technology, I am not sure of the answer. I suppose that one could argue
> > that I should be aware of this hard question ..., and I was a little bit,
> > but I certainly was not studying for it.
> >
> > - From my experience with the OEQs, I found these to fall in line with
> many
> > of my lab testing and feature testing I had done in my preparation. If
> you
> > like to test a protocol and verify your work, then you will have no
> > problems
> > with the questions I had. Simple memorization would have been hard to
> do.
> > Example of what I mean (this was not on my lab and this is only an
> example
> > of what I mean)
> >
> > Example: lets say that you are studying trunking and you want to practice
> > configuring one side and not the other. Looking at the config options
> with
> > the trunk protocols and port modes, what would happen if you only
> > configured
> > one side? What happens if you misconfigured one side? What happens if
> you
> > have misconfigured duplex and speeds?
> >
> > In my case, I have learned a lot by using debugs and misconfiguring
> things.
> > You all know that when things do not go right, you will learn a lot. It
> is
> > easy to forget the labs you did when everything worked.
> >
> > So to continue following this example - if you were asked about a
> trunking
> > config or about a trunk operation for a OEQ, you would probably get this
> > question and think it was easy.
> >
> > For the 3 'easy' questions I had, I found that my normal study habits
> > covered these nicely.
> >
> > I do wish Cisco would get rid of these OEQs all together however, they
> are
> > not worth the time IMO, and do not really ensure 'only-experts' pass. A
> > lot
> > of 'hit-or-miss' in these questions and my feelings are that some experts
> > have failed the lab because of these, and I think these people should
> have
> > passed. Any who ...
> >
> > *** Troubleshooting section - I failed this section since I had not
> > completed enough tickets in the time given.
> >
> > It was very disheartening that before lunch I knew my whole trip was a
> > failure. I simply had not completed enough tickets given the time.
> >
> > Most of these were similar to what I have labbed, however, a few of these
> > were odd IMO and I did not even think of these for an R&S / enterprise
> type
> > ...
> >
> > The wording of the problem is purposely vague, and the router access was
> > clumsy. I think the screen could be partitioned and presented in a much
> > more clear way. It is very easy to look at the diagram and get lost and
> or
> > confused. I got the feeling that Cisco is trying to do too much with one
> > screen, and i would suggest that the screen be broken up some /
> > partitioned.
> >
> > Overall, I liked the idea of having a troubleshooting section ...
> >
> > Putting the confusion and wording aside, you have to study very hard for
> > this section. I figured since I have done a fair amount of tshooting in
> > the
> > past and in my studies, that I would find this section an easy addition.
> I
> > also consider myself decent with the core technologies and some of the
> new
> > 'non-core' lab items, so I was looking forward to this.
> >
> > My approach does not work. One reason this does not work is because the
> > questions are so vague. An example that was previously shown by Cisco
> was
> > "router X cannot communicate with router Y". How to troubleshoot this
> > quickly? There are a few routers and or a frame relay network in the
> > middle
> > of the two end points ...
> >
> > Lets say you start with a ping and the ping fails, ok ... you verified
> that
> > the trouble ticket are real trouble tickets. Ping does not get you much
> in
> > this environment ... so is the problem an IP address misconfigured on the
> > end point routers or a router in the middle, an interface shutdown, a
> > routing protocol configured wrong, etc ... how to start and find this
> > quickly?
> >
> > If you have 12 tickets in total, and you need to pass this section, then
> > you need to solve about 9 or so ... Try to solve them all ... make sure
> you
> > have some 'padding' in case one of your other solutions is not the right
> > one. My advice would be to solve as many as you can.
> >
> > You have about 11 to 13 minutes per question. I found this section hard
> > ...
> > and did not pass this section.
> >
> > I wish the troubleshooting section could be included in the regular lab.
> > This way you would solve the tickets as well as build your lab at the
> same
> > time. Any who ...
> >
> > *** Configure section - I failed this part as well.
> >
> > I agree with what others have said. You have around 5.5 hours and an
> > enormous amount of information to get through. It seems like they have
> > taken a normal lab and just reorganized it and now give you less time to
> > solve it.
> >
> > Please forgive me for suggesting this, but ... in order to pass the
> config
> > section, I almost feel as though you need to memorize commands and spit
> out
> > the configs quickly. No time for doc cd, and limited time for the '?'.
> I
> > think it is a terrible idea to blindly memorize materials ... but I
> cannot
> > think of another way to answer a huge amount of material in just a little
> > over 5 hours.
> >
> > Does this mean that being a CCIE requires you to have an amazing memory?
> I
> > hate to say it, but I think Cisco is missing it on this. I do not think
> > this format allows for a lot of individual creativity and style ... I
> think
> > you will have to fit whatever mold is required. Perhaps that is a good
> > thing anyway, maybe ... I just think that the config section will force
> > people to memorize technologies. I would like to see differences in
> people
> > and also still allow for different approaches and styles.
> >
> > Sorry team, I know I am not communicating this very well, and in fact I
> do
> > not like the way this sounds.
> >
> > If I am to plan my next take, I will make sure that I can spit out the
> > "non-core" commands quickly, as well as the 'extraneous' and obscure
> tweaks
> > to each of these non-core topics ... I would need to do this super fast
> > since time is so tight. We used to have the doc cd for these obscure
> items
> > ... maybe you can still rely on the doc cd, and you should know how to
> find
> > everything super quick.
> >
> > What is core and non-core? <-- ... IMO, this has not been communicated
> > properly yet ...
> >
> > I think that my lab was really more of a network admin lab, and less like
> a
> > 'set up an advanced and insane network'. What does this mean in terms of
> > lab topics? Well ... look at the lab blueprint, and think about which
> > items
> > are 'on-going' and admin work. Study the heck out of these ...
> >
> > My lab had some new topics on it, of course it was the new version; makes
> > sense ... Lord knows I do not want to break the NDA here ... so I am
> trying
> > to tip toe this topic carefully ...
> >
> > Let me just say, it is my opinion that you cannot pass without knowing
> the
> > non-core topics. Does this make sense? Probably not ... what I think
> has
> > happened is that the lab has shifted its core. From what used to be
> > advanced network set up, R&S, ... to more of a network admin role. This
> is
> > also what Cisco has told us.
> >
> > Folks - think back to what Maurilio has told us and the extensive
> research
> > that Cisco did when re-designing the R&S CCIE. Cisco found out that
> > companies are not looking for network set up, but more of an ongoing
> > maintenance, monitoring, troubleshooting, etc ...
> >
> > So this means less focus on what we used to think was core; folks, I
> cannot
> > emphasize this enough. I was very disappointed to find that what I had
> > previously considered to be the traditional R&S core topics are not
> really
> > core anymore ... in fact, my studies were off. Cisco told us that the
> > version 4 lab had changed its focus ... I guess I did not fully
> understand
> > what this means in terms of prep work.
> >
> > Team - as mentioned above, look over the blueprint again and consider
> those
> > items which represent this change in focus and study the heck out of
> them.
> > (the non-core is now core topics). Of course you have to know the "core
> > R&S
> > topics" ... but you will not pass without knowing the "new v4 core" (AKA
> > non-core).
> >
> > Back to the earlier question ... what is core and non-core? Another way
> of
> > looking at this question is ... "can I pass without knowing the non-core
> > topics?" As others have mentioned in their v4 reviews, everything on the
> > blueprint is fair game. Ok ... we already knew this, and team, I hope
> this
> > is becoming clearer.
> >
> > Do not make the same mistake as me and think that the R&S is a routing is
> > switching lab ... the focus has changed some as Cisco told us. I hope
> this
> > message is getting out.
> >
> > 'nough said about that.
> >
> > A little about my prep work. I have used the ASET labs, and these are
> > great. These helped me a lot in the CCIE v3 topics. I was able to get
> > through many of these in 6 hours or so ... and get 90%+ in scores. I
> > thought I was ready for the CCIE lab and everything seemed to be on
> target
> > for my lab! As mentioned above however, I did not fully understand the
> > change in focus and how the non-core items have become core. I also used
> > CCBOOTCAMPs v3 materials, and I enjoyed these a lot. I was completing
> > these
> > fairly well in my studies.
> >
> > I am sorry to be so confusing in my writing. I hope what I have said
> makes
> > sense. Please also go back and re-read what Cisco has told us about the
> > new
> > v4 design and new topics.
> >
> > Also team, I hope to avoid a word smith exercise with any of you about
> > what the word core means. I am sure that this word has many meanings
> to
> > many people.
> >
> > It is getting late and I am sure my ramblings have become long winded
> > please permit a few more (then I promise to be done with this email)
> >
> > A suggestion to the vendors who are on this list. I might suggest to
> take
> > an 8 hour lab and fit it into a 5.5 hour time frame. Please also
> consider
> > the change in focus that Cisco told us about and ensure that there are
> > plenty of additional items in the labs you create. Remove some of the
> > routing and switching portions and make sure you include extraneous and
> > obscure non-core topics. We have to be an expert in everything of course
> >
> > You all are very sharp, all of you, and so I am probably not telling you
> > anything you do not already know. Rock on vendors!
> >
> > For the Cisco partners, the change in focus is good for enterprise
> > customers
> > who need more of a network admin focus / role and does this fit your
> > business model? What do Cisco partners want in a CCIE? Is this
> > represented in the new v4 format? If not, I would suggest to voice your
> > comments as it is important to both partners and enterprise customers.
> > Very
> > important to voice your comments / praise / concerns. Just a thought .
> >
> > Team pardon the delays in my next responses. After having put many
> > things
> > on hold, I have an immediate honey-do list to take care of. I have some
> > work to do around the house before I can consider how I will take this on
> > again oh boy, it is fall in NJ and so I have mountains of leaves to
> > attend
> > to. My aching back!
> >
> > Lol have a great night team.
> >
> > --
> > Andrew Lee Lissitz
> > all.from.nj_at_gmail.com
> >
> >
> > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Regards
> Roy
>
>
> 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
Received on Fri Oct 30 2009 - 10:29:13 ART
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Nov 01 2009 - 07:51:01 ART