Re: CCIE RS Lab Grading Question

so how did you get the second portion working without broadcast?

I think what im learning is that verification is as important as fixing the
problem, then at the end of all your tickets verify everything again

:)

On 1 April 2013 18:26, Eduardo Vazquez <evazquez_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 - 20:12:10 ART