Hey guys, I thought I'd post a comment here to dispel a popular myth.
The CCIE is NOT a language exam more than a technical exam. If you KNOW what you are doing, and what it will affect, the questions are clear and straightforward. If anything, the materials written by vendors like us prefer to err on the side of vagueness, rather than give away the answer - we do this so that in your pondering of what we are asking you consider alternative options. It is intentional, but sometimes annoying - that is why we have OSL for you to request clarification. :) I only say this as I don't want people to feel that they have an additional battle to fight on top of the technical one - the exams from Cisco (in my experience) are challenging but clearly worded. If they use "strange" wording it is probably copied and pasted from the DocCD (much like a lot of our questions are if we do the same thing). It is my opinion (as both a student and instructor) that for the most part the real CCIE lab exam questions are clearer but ALSO easier than ours, and the two are intertwined. We add ambiguity as a challenge and we push you harder. I could easily write a question that says "do this" and "do that" and you could follow it and configure it, but that wouldn't push you enough, nor teach you as broadly. When we write materials we often write questions in such a way that your mind will consider many different answers. Effectively we've tested you and trained you on multiple things, which direct questioning cannot do. I found it frustrating at times as a student when I would configure a question differently to how the author of the PG did. But after looking at both mine and their solution, and identifying both the correct and incorrect elements of each, and realising I could interpret the questions differently and the nuances of each method the light bulb went on for me: I was ready to pass. Some people often post questions as to other ways the question could be interpreted - keep doing that, as it stimulates discussion and forces thought. The critical thinking ability is NOT what the lab tests for, but it IS what will ensure that you know you are ready to pass (and it will ensure that when you get CCIE-level jobs, you are prepared for them as the real world is oftentimes stranger than the lab). As Einstein said - "Any fool can know. The point is to understand." Cheers, Jared Scrivener CCIE2 #16983 (R&S, Security), CISSP Technical Instructor - IPexpert, Inc. Telephone: +1.810.326.1444 Fax: +1.810.454.0130 Mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blog: jaredscrivener.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Suresh Mishra Sent: Thursday, 10 July 2008 7:27 PM To: Marvin Greenlee Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] EIGRP Hi Tony, This is the beginning of CCIE. Soon you will come to know that it is more of a language exam than a challenging technical exam. I mean learning technical things using non-technical language. When I read the question for the first time in cisco press book that says do not use dynamic PVC's, my first reaction was to not use an SVC( Switched virtual circuit). Later on I come to know that it was about disabling inverse-arp. Something like this "Make sure that router R5 uses different ID to avoid loop in the network" for a BGP router means you need to use route-reflector cluster. Well, welcome to the technical world of CCIE. Thanks Suresh On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Marvin Greenlee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sometimes locally generated traffic doesn't properly hit outbound > ACLs/policies. Did you verify that you saw matches (counters increasing) on > the EIGRP traffic class? > > Also, how were you matching the traffic, match prot eigrp, or with an ACL. > If using an ACL, make sure that you are matching both the destination of > either 224.0.0.10 or the neighbor's address. > > The CCIE lab is full of situations where you can be asked to do a normal > thing, but then told to not do it a certain way. > > On a side note, the "ip bandwidth-percent eigrp" is a very interesting > command, because it is a percentage command that will allow you to specify a > number greater than 100, which could be used if the bandwidth on the > interface was set to a lower value than what the circuit actually was. > > Just curious, is there a reason why you chose policing over shaping? > > Marvin Greenlee, CCIE #12237 (R&S, SP, Sec) > Senior Technical Instructor - IPexpert, Inc. > Telephone: +1.810.326.1444 > Fax: +1.810.454.0130 > Mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Progress or excuses, which one are you making? > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Hidalgo > Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 4:46 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] EIGRP > > Hello people from the list. > > On the "Focus Labs", Section 9 (EIGRP), question 9.18 it is requested to set > the EIGRP bandwidth of a FR link to 37.5%. This WITHOUT using an interface > based command (that would be the ip bandwidth eigrp AS# %). > > The PG gives a funky solution of actually changing the BW of the interface > itself. I frankly disagree with that answer although it may accomplish the > goal from some perspective. > > The solution that I thought of was MQC. I created an ACL to match eigrp > traffic. Then a policy map to "police cir 579000" (579K). This because the > BW of the interface is 1544Ks (default) and this represents the 37.5% of the > total BW of the FR interface. Then, I applied the policy map OUTBOUND on the > interface in question. > > Since I am not breaking any rules or requirements, does this look like a > valid solution?? > > THX > > > > > >
