Hi Chuck, sorry to hear that you didn't pass, but I do get the funny feeling that the next try is going bring good news to this list.. ;) Anyway, just wanted to say, your commment really makes the test sounds difficult if not impossible .....
Keep it on, and you'll be there in no time..;) Regards Donny >From: "Chuck Larrieu" >Reply-To: "Chuck Larrieu" >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Lab Attempt #2 - no go :-Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 20:34:44 -0500 > >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 _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=28154&t=28142 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
