I am able to complete any IPexpert LAB in less than six hours (except some LABs like LAB13 which are very large) with more than 90% accuracy. Except for 2-3 questions which are either looking for a specific command or stated vaguely . I am able to answer most of them. I am not sure if that is enough for the real LAB or I need to do something more.
Thanks Suresh On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Mark Snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That is exactly what you need to do Suresh, if you want to pass, you need to > readjust your expectations of what the proctors are expecting of you in the > lab. > > Mark Snow > Sr Technical Instructor > IPexpert, Inc. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 11, 2008, at 7:31 PM, "Suresh Mishra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> Well, Mark that's your choice whether you want to change the question or >> not. >> >> I told you what I had noticed. It was my observation and I felt it was >> a very simple task but was made completed by stating in an absolute >> abnormal way. >> >> If you want I will continue to point out such errors. If not then I >> will readjust my expectations. >> >> Thanks >> Suresh >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Suresh Mishra >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Basically you are saying "every routing table". Question says " any >>> routing table" >>> >>> Back to square one. Its language exam than being a technical exam. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Suresh >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Marvin Greenlee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> As the proctor would say, "you're reading too much into the question". >>>> >>>> "should only appear in any routing table as a connected route" >>>> >>>> Is not the same as >>>> >>>> "should appear in every routing table as a connected route" >>>> >>>> If you choose to interpret that the networks need to be on every router, >>>> then you could add loopbacks as needed on each device that did not have >>>> the >>>> networks locally. >>>> >>>> >>>> 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: Suresh Mishra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 6:30 PM >>>> To: Marvin Greenlee >>>> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] EIGRP >>>> >>>> Volume II >>>> Section 14 >>>> Task 1.2 >>>> >>>> Please read the task carefully. You will find the "any routing table " >>>> Word. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Suresh >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Marvin Greenlee >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Nowhere in the question does it state that it needs to be in ALL the >>>> >>>> routing >>>>> >>>>> tables. >>>>> >>>>> If the section said "these networks should show up as a connected route >>>>> in >>>>> all routing tables" that would be different. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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: Suresh Mishra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 4:35 PM >>>>> To: Marvin Greenlee >>>>> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] >>>>> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] EIGRP >>>>> >>>>> Well, I think the question itself has no real meaning to it and should >>>>> be restated in the next version. >>>>> I still appreciate your viewpoint but I think I have clear >>>>> disagreement with you here. >>>>> >>>>> The CCIE LAB is very critical in terms of stating questions and most >>>>> of the time the questions are hidden and looking for tasks that can >>>>> only be implemented with certain commands. >>>>> >>>>> So for us as CCIE candidates, it becomes very important to read the >>>>> question carefully and make sure that we meet the stated objectives in >>>>> the question. I would like to re-phrase the question one more time to >>>>> explain you the confusion. >>>>> >>>>> "The 172.16.1.0/24 and 172.16.2.0/24 subnets should only appear in any >>>>> routing table as a connected route." >>>>> >>>>> The words here are very important, first being "any routing table" . >>>>> We all know that route will appear as connected on the router where it >>>>> is configured or configure a static route using physical interface >>>>> instead of default gateway. >>>>> >>>>> When you say any routing table. That means it will appear as connected >>>>> in all the routers routing table. That definitly needs correction. >>>>> >>>>> If you read the comment by jared earlier, he said that you guys have >>>>> intentionally made some questions harder and I belive that where this >>>>> questions falls in. >>>>> >>>>> I see this question as being incorrectly stated and confusing rather >>>>> than challenging. hence it has no relevence to CCIE LAB in my view. >>>>> >>>>> With that said, I still belive that most of the questions in the >>>>> workbook are correct and most of the answers are also correct. Overall >>>>> it is very helpful resource. >>>>> >>>>> thanks >>>>> Suresh >>>>> >>>>> Suresh >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Marvin Greenlee >>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> "these subnets should only appear in routing tables as connected >>>>>> routes" >>>>>> "do not add these subnets to any routing protocol" >>>>>> >>>>>> These two phrases are asking the same thing. Understanding the >>>> >>>> technology >>>>>> >>>>>> of how the routing table works should make it quite clear that if you >>>>>> are >>>>>> adding a network to a routing protocol, then somebody will probably >>>>>> see >>>> >>>> it >>>>>> >>>>>> as something other than a connected route. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The lab is all about being able to interpret wording, and >>>>>> understanding >>>>> >>>>> the >>>>>> >>>>>> technologies deep enough that you can understand what is being asked. >>>>>> It >>>>> >>>>> is >>>>>> >>>>>> VERY likely that you will see something early in the lab, either in >>>>>> the >>>>>> introductory wording, or in an early section, that will affect how a >>>> >>>> later >>>>>> >>>>>> task will be accomplished. It could be something like "do not >>>>>> configure >>>>> >>>>> any >>>>>> >>>>>> static routes unless specifically allowed in a section" or "make sure >>>> >>>> that >>>>>> >>>>>> all interfaces are reachable from all devices at the end of the lab." >>>>>> >>>>>> The point of a practice lab is to challenge you to make sure that you >>>>>> understand the technologies, no matter how the questions are written. >>>>>> >>>>>> Reading through the sentence should tell you that the sentence itself >>>>> >>>>> isn't >>>>>> >>>>>> asking you to configure anything, just that there is a guideline that >>>> >>>> must >>>>>> >>>>>> be followed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, you should be in the practice of READING THE ENTIRE LAB and >>>>>> DRAWING >>>>> >>>>> A >>>>>> >>>>>> DIAGRAM. If you have a diagram, and you are including routing >>>>>> protocol >>>>>> information, adding that those networks are not going to be in a >>>>>> routing >>>>>> protocol should be on the diagram. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you've worked all the way through to section 14, and you don't >>>>> >>>>> understand >>>>>> >>>>>> how next hop inaccessibility can cause problems in BGP, then I suggest >>>>> >>>>> that >>>>>> >>>>>> you stop working on the multiprotocol scenarios, and go back and focus >>>>>> on >>>>>> the individual technologies. >>>>>> >>>>>> Which part of this do you think "has no relation to the actual CCIE >>>>>> LAB": >>>>>> reading the whole lab? >>>>>> drawing a diagram? >>>>>> understanding the technologies? >>>>>> >>>>>> 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: Suresh Mishra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 1:05 PM >>>>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>> Cc: Marvin Greenlee; [email protected] >>>>>> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] EIGRP >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, I am working on LAB14 task 1.2 The task reads as follows. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "The 172.16.1.0/24 and 172.16.2.0/24 subnets should only appear in any >>>>>> routing table as a connected route" >>>>>> >>>>>> After reading this I was confused, because to me connected route is >>>>>> something that has a physical interface associated with it. Also, I am >>>>>> not sure how to advertise a route as a connected route in a routing >>>>>> domain. >>>>>> >>>>>> The answer to this question was a suprise to me. Actually, all it >>>>>> wants us to use the bgp next-hop-self command when advertising routes >>>>>> to IBGP peers. This task even does not appear in the BGP section. It >>>>>> is part of basic configuration. >>>>>> >>>>>> I would like to know if this is something that is going to be only in >>>>>> ipexperts LAB guide and has no relation with the actual CCIE LAB. >>>>>> >>>>>> Reading these type of questions demotivates us because we don't know >>>>>> what to think and how to think. Its impossible for me to think of >>>>>> connected routes being associated with ibgp next-hop-self command. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> Suresh >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> Suresh >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Jared Scrivener >>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >
