Re: CCIE RS Lab Grading Question

That second problem was an MPLS over Ethernet problem.

Ed Vazquez

On Apr 1, 2013, at 14:12, Tony Singh <mothafungla_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 VC!zquez <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 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
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
Received on Mon Apr 01 2013 - 18:07:17 ART