You may be right. The exam might be like that. But I do not see any advantage in making something difficult using a language twist. Language does not change the technology or make it any better.
I would rather abandon the exam then putting myself under pressure to learn something that had no practicle implication. I will still know all the Cisco stuff what if I don't have CCIE. Thanks Suresh - Show quoted text - On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Scott Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Scott Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
