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

How long has your company been a Cisco 360 training partner? Do you
have any students scheduled to take the lab in the next three months
that have attended the program? How many approximately? What about the
other Cisco 360 training companies? The program is more than 6 months
old isn't it? Can you tell us a lot more about the menotoring
opportunitie offered by the your company specifically and the Cisco
360 in general? What sets the Cisco 360 apart? Sell me. When do you
anticipate having the first batch of Cisco 360 students pass the lab?
How long is the program? 6 months or 12 months or is it longer? Dawn
said she was a 360 student and CCIE Lab candidate, has she completed
the program yet and when is she scheduled to take the lab?

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Brad Ellis <brad_at_ccbootcamp.com> wrote:
> We haven't had anyone take the new lab yet that has gone through the new
> 360 content. I did have a conversation yesterday with the 360 team and
> it was confirmed that Maurilio (the guy who writes and coordinates the
> lab exam) did go through the latest additions to the 360 content and
> verify that the content is more than sufficient to adequately prepare
> candidates for the new v4.0 lab exam!
>
> thanks,
> Brad Ellis
> CCIE#5796 (R&S / Security)
> CCSI# 30482
> CEO / President
> CCBOOTCAMP - Cisco Learning Solutions Partner (CLSP)
> Email: brad_at_ccbootcamp.com
> Toll Free: 877-654-2243
> International: +1-702-968-5100
> Skype: skype:ccbootcamp?call
> FAX: +1-702-446-8012
> YES! We take Cisco Learning Credits!
> Training And Remote Racks: http://www.ccbootcamp.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Ryan West
> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 6:10 AM
> To: Joe Astorino; Gary Duncanson
> Cc: ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
> Subject: 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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> 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 - 11:38:52 ART