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

With the 360 vendors having the "inside scoop" to the new lab, I'm wondering how many have gone to war yet.

-ryan

-----Original Message-----
From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Joe Astorino
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 4:58 AM
To: Gary Duncanson
Cc: ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Not a happy ending ... I came up short.

Gary,

I agree! As time goes on, things will continue to evolve for the better
just as they are evolving now

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 4:37 AM, Gary Duncanson <
gary.duncanson_at_googlemail.com> wrote:

> Joe,
>
> Im sure all the vendors have done their homework in terms of providing the
> best training materials they can. I guess we will just have to see how tall
> that pile of dead bodies becomes before we can guage just how helpful it has
> all been. Over the years many people have passed thanks in large part to the
> use of grey market products or ASET labs or what have you. It is rather
> difficult to make this stuff up and you do need technology examples to work
> over. I think we will just have to give the new lab and the adjusted
> training materials time to bed in and see where everything is going from
> there. Im going for a lab slot Easter time. Hopefully things will be clearer
> by then.
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Astorino" <jastorino_at_ipexpert.com>
> To: "Nadeem Rafi" <nrafia_at_gmail.com>
> Cc: "Roy Waterman" <roy.waterman_at_gmail.com>; "ALL From_NJ" <
> all.from.nj_at_gmail.com>; "Cisco certification" <ccielab_at_groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 7:48 AM
> Subject: 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> 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