Chuck, You didn't fail, buddy, you simply got one BIG step closer to achieving it.
It's all about learning, right? I totally admire your approach, and I applaud your determination. The next one's got your name on it... count on it! Paul ""Chuck Larrieu"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I wish I could say it took so long to get my results back because my > excruciatingly sophisticated solutions to the problems presented required > detailed and intimate analysis. Alas, that was not the case. > > For those ninnies who complain that the one day lab devalues the process, > all I can say is WRONG! > The lab I saw was far more difficult than I remember from my previous > attempt, and my previous attempt was NOT easy. In my first attempt, I did > not see anything I couldn't do. This time, although FAR better prepared, I > saw LOTS of things I couldn't do. IMHO, the one day format, with the > elimination of the monkey tasks, allows Cisco to demand a lot more. The 26 > points previously allocated to terminal server setup, cabling, and > troubleshooting all go someplace. WOW! The places they went! Previous topics > that were glossed over appeared in depth. Cisco continues to up the ante, > and not always in ways one might expect. Some things I wouldn't have > expected were there in spades. Probably THE major factor continues to be > reachability. If you don't understand the implications of the given network > topology, and given interactions, you will be screwed. > > The topology presented was interesting. Amazing what one can do on a six > router / two switch pod to wreak havoc and let you know what an idiot you > are. Devious doesn't begin to describe it. Bootcamp and IPExpert - it ain't > the number of routers, boys! > > The e-mail feedback is amusing, but not particularly informative. I failed > with a score greater than 20, meaning I can go back in 30 days for more > humiliation, if I so desire. the breakdown percentages ( not scores ) would > be of more interest if I were sitting with the proctor discussing the whys > and the expectations. Otherwise it does me no god at all. for example, I > solved a particular problem doing something a particular way. It worked just > fine in terms of the results. Yet on that section I scored very poorly. What > were they looking for? > > Fat fingers are still the major enemy for me, at least. It's no fun fat > fingering on a Cat 5K. Not by any means. It also helps to be certain layer > two stuff is done correctly. > > Well, debriefing will be fun. I have the topology duplicated in my home lab, > and I will "enjoy" analyzing the problems I saw in the real lab. No you > can't telnet in to look. DON'T ASK! > > In terms of seating, it appears to me that there are now more racks in the > lab, in San Jose, anyway. Half the seats are taken by those testing. The > other half seem to be those used the previous day. the proctors crank > through the idle racks, grading the previous day's results. > > One last thing. I know what CCO says, and I know what IOS I saw on my rack. > Rats. The advertised IOS would have gone a long way towards eliminating a > particular problem I had. Not complaining, because any CCIE should have been > able to solve the particular puzzle no matter what the IOS involved. Just > observing that some things are still in the process of change. > > The proctors are still the good folks I remember from last time. Too bad we > are not given the opportunity for more interaction afterwards. I would > really have enjoyed discussing my results. > > Whelp, another time. > > Chuck Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=28143&t=28142 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
