Re: CCIE RS Lab Grading Question

Just for accuracy's sake the redundancy question was a different task all
together. It was a separate set of points from the first mentioned frame
relay question.

Thanks,

Ed Vazquez

On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Tony Singh <mothafungla_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 Vazquez <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 Vazquez <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 Vazquez <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
Received on Mon Apr 01 2013 - 12:26:05 ART