Re: Not a happy ending ... I came up short.

Hey guys!

Obviously, we have not had the chance to see or experience the v4.0 lab
first hand like some of you guys have. However, I can say with 100%
confidence that when we write and prepare our material, it is while sitting
down with a copy of the v4.0 blueprint. We really strive to make sure our
bootcamps cover every single topic on the blueprint, and that our lab
material is as up to date as possible. Naturally, everybody is getting used
to the new lab format and some things will take time to adjust. For
instance, we now have 5.5 hours of config instead of 7.5 hours. Obviously
that is a big change. How much to pre-configure and how much to remove from
previous labs is something that right now is a bit dynamic in everybody's
product. I can definitely say that we have tweeked out all of our v4.0
materials significantly to account for the new changes. The tweeks include
changes in how much configuration is given in the 5.5 hours, trying to be
realistic with what we see in the lab.

As far as what is "core" vs "non-core" I don't really see that as an issue
with any of our product line for R&S v4.0. Like I said, we sit down with
the blueprint and we try to make sure our labs have everything needed. If
you study the blueprint and the relevant topics well you should be well
prepared. I don't suspect anything has really changed from that
perspective. We still have a blueprint, and we need to know the material on
the blueprint. Prioritizing what is "important" or "not so important" or
"core" and "non-core" is just counter-productive IMO. It's a
blueprint...Cisco doesn't say this topic is 5/5 relevance and this other
topic is 2/5.

With that being said, obviously every new exam release comes with certain
things that are "more likely" to appear. For v3.0 everybody in the game was
well prepared for those things because it's been out for a long time.
People talk, and we listen. The same thing will happen with v4.0 and I
think that over time everybody will adapt to what may be "more important" or
"core." As for right now, I think we have done the very best that can be
done based on the knowledge we have.

I hope that helps shed some light on our way of thinking about things, and I
wish you all the best on your next shot ALL From_NJ. Remember, there is no
"failure" only experiences and learning on the road to victory. I'm sure
you will make it if you keep on keeping on as hard as you have been! We all
know you can do it!!!

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 3:29 AM, Nadeem Rafi <nrafia_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Regards,
Joe Astorino CCIE #24347 (R&S)
Sr. Technical Instructor - IPexpert
Mailto: jastorino_at_ipexpert.com
Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
Live Assistance, Please visit: www.ipexpert.com/chat
eFax: +1.810.454.0130
IPexpert is a premier provider of Classroom and Self-Study Cisco CCNA (R&S,
Voice & Security), CCNP, CCVP, CCSP and CCIE (R&S, Voice, Security & Service
Provider) Certification Training with locations throughout the United
States, Europe and Australia. Be sure to check out our online communities at
www.ipexpert.com/communities and our public website at www.ipexpert.com
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net