Re: Over configuration

Just a little humor there - time management nearly sunk me in the lab
and remains a challenge even for the written. Typing with a cane is
more difficult that it might at first appear!

I doubt seriously that you'd lose points in your specific example. I
think the collective intelligence gleaned from lunch hour with the
proctors over the years has led us to an understanding that grading
scripts will look for certain things in your configs and probably
various 'show' output. It would be very difficult, IMHO, to extend
those scripts to analyze additional config beyond what minimally
needed to be there. Having said that, it might be a valuable exercise
to consider whether or not your additional config could somehow
conceivably change the output of some 'show' command in such a way as
to trip up a grading script. I wouldn't stress it too much one way or
the other but don't be too shy about letting your proctor know that
you can think of n number of ways to solve a given task. He/she might
give you some gentle (read: vague) guidance or they might not. Just
luck of the draw as to who you get and what kind of mood they're in on
that given day - you'll probably be able to gauge that for yourself
pretty quick-like...

On Jan 4, 2011, at 1:45 , Nathan Pease wrote:

> I certainly would not do this for every task or even very many
> tasks. But in certain situations it would be faster to just do both
> rather than go ask the proctor or think about it for to long.
>
> I guise the bottom line is can you loose points for over
> configuration assuming that you also got the task done correctly.
>
> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Scott M Vermillion <scott_ccie_list_at_it-ag.com
> > wrote:
> I'm jealous of anyone fast enough to even able to contemplate such a
> thing! ;-)
>
>
> On Jan 4, 2011, at 11:46 , Nathan Pease wrote:
>
> What is everyones thoughts on over configuration. If I have a task
> and I see
> two possible config options should I just turn on both if it doesn't
> hurt.
>
> Example task: Do not allow the other hosts on the segment to intercept
> routing protocol updates between R1 and R2.
>
> Solution: Unicast updates or MD5 authentication.
>
> Would it hurt to just do both knowing that one of them will be
> correct and
> the other won't hurt anything?
>
> Nathan
>
>
> 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 Tue Jan 04 2011 - 13:59:32 ART