Anyone who has taken the Lab exam will know Marvin is right on point.
Thanks for your clarifications Marvin.
-------Original Message-------
From: Marvin Greenlee
Date: 07/11/08 19:48:16
To: 'Suresh Mishra'
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] EIGRP
The test is very much a language test.
You need to:
A. be aware that sentences can be interpreted in multiple ways
B. Get clarification if needed, to understand the correct interpretation
C. make sure that your configuration meets the requirements, and matches the
correct interpretation.
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 7:27 PM
To: Marvin Greenlee
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] EIGRP
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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
