Re: CCIE RS Lab Grading Question

Lol that's why they say read the questions first so yes you would need to fix
the ospf peering problem for reachability to occur further down the line...

The more you go on the more you realise you don't know IMO!

--
BR
Sent from my iPhone on 3
On 1 Apr 2013, at 17:33, Eduardo VC!zquez <evazquez_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> To further explain...In a different question, there was complaints about
connection problems to several networks. They had redundant paths, I fixed one
of the paths and the pings were successful.  I did not get the points due to
the fact that both paths were not.
>
> I seems like one has to infer that the technology is completely fixed as
intended.  It is not so much about just fixing the problem.  I will have to
keep this in mind for the next assessment.
>
> Oh man, I want this thing so bad I can taste it, but holy crap this is hard.
>
> e
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Eduardo VC!zquez <evazquez_at_gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> R1--S0/1--10.1.1.1/24--DLCI201--frame relay
switch--DLCI102--10.1.1.2/24--S0/1--R2
>
> It was a very simple resolution LMI type was incorrect on one side.  Took
the erroneous LMI type statement out, and ping works.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ed Vazquez
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Tony Singh <mothafungla_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> So you got the same subnets behind two different routers?
>
> Draw a topology please
>
> --
> BR
>
> Tony
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 1 Apr 2013, at 16:53, Eduardo VC!zquez <evazquez_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Tony,
> >
> > The routers were connected to the network in question, RX 10.1.1.x/24
> > connected to RY 10.1.1.y/24.
> > *
> > *
> > *Resolve connection problem.  The following command should show
responses:*
> > *
> > *
> > *RX# ping 10.1.1.y*
> >
> > That is pretty much it.
> >
> > If they said that it was a router on another network, then fine you need
a
> > routing protocol...but as it is if the ping is successful, I think good
> > done with that moving on to the next one.
> >
> > John,
> >
> > I guess what I am wondering is, if this type of grading is in affect for
> > the actual test.  the test I am talking about is only a
> > practice assessment.
> >
> > Thanks everyone for their insight.
> >
> > e
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 10:02 AM, john matijevic
> > <john.matijevic_at_gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> >> If you feel you passed the lab exam, you can request a re-read.
> >> I believe you need 80% on both Troubleshooting and 80% on
> >> Configuration to pass the lab exam.
> >> There should be no doubt whatsoever so if you feel you passed and got
> >> working per the requirement, then I would go ahead and do the reread.
> >> No need to explain yourself here, go towards Cisco and work it out with
> >> them.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> John
> >> On 4/1/13, Eduardo Vazquez <evazquez_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Hello Everyone,
> >>>
> >>> I am on my 4th attempt at passing the lab exam and as an
> >>> additional exercise I thought that I would try one of the assessments
> >> that
> >>> the 360 program offers.
> >>>
> >>> It seems that I did not pass the troubleshooting section although I
fixed
> >>> the problems. Not to be too specific, but in a frame relay scenario
they
> >>> ask you to fix a problem in which one host can not ping the other.  I
> >> fixed
> >>> the problem so that I could ping the other side successfully, but I did
> >> not
> >>> get the points because I did not put a "broadcast" statement in the
map.
> >>> No where in the scenario did it say, "the command "ping x.x.x.x" should
> >>> work AND make sure that you can run multicast over the link as well."
> >> Only
> >>> that "ping x.x.x.x should work."
> >>>
> >>> I missed 3 questions in where I met the scenario's requirements. I did
> >> miss
> >>> one legitamately, but one as opposed to 4 is the difference between
pass
> >>> and fail.
> >>>
> >>> I am not sure what to do about this should I always infer that even if
I
> >>> solve the problem described that there may be a hidden issue as well?
> >>>
> >>> Should I address this with Cisco360?  I am a bit discouraged by this,
as
> >> I
> >>> felt very confident about the material.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for any insight people can share.
> >>>
> >>> Ed Vazquez
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 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