Group,
Watch your addressing you use when practicing. The IP addressing I used for
my
last lab was very similar to the lab and caused problems. I had to re-addr
interfaces with the correct network more then a few times. And since I didn't
create the IP addressing scheme, I had to keep flipping from one page to
another
for diagrams and addressing placement. The lab addressing seemed logical, but
since I didn't create and configure individual interfaces, I lost more time
with
transposing then if I just did it the addressing myself.
Per Purchasing Lab Scenarios:
I'd like the material to have is all:
1) straight labs tasks and diagrams
2) hint(s) to guide you to the specific problem
3) hints to specific solution
4) explanation on who/what/where/when/why on problem and why that particular
solution is
used/best
Obvious, with this much detail and documentation needed, the price would in
the
high range for Lab material. This layout would satisfy everyone's need. Or
you
could have a lower fee for Options 1 & 2 and then a little higher the
Options 1
thru 4. Since the 1-Day format is relatively new, Cisco will not it, so the
documentation would not have to change noticeably in the next few years. They
might add a little section for troubleshooting or just depend on the tasks
uniqueness for the gotchas and candidates own fat fingers and DUH factors.
Included in Lab Docs should be basic and advanced technology specific labs
on a
handful of gear.
These should be designed for no more then 6 routers. The sweet spot would be
3-4
routers.
I'd recommend that any labs not be designed on equipment most people cannot
reasonable afford. Designing 12-15 routers labs seems excessive unless all
you
will be doing is labs designed for 1-Day lab exam only for testing speed,
time
management, knowledge, etc. This could be a solution for a commercial remote
rack plan, but care should be taken to compile a 1-Day format lab for less
equipment requirements.
Recommended times for Options 1-2 & 1-4 should be included for comparison.
This
would give the candidate a loose measurement on his speed, and their level of
knowledge to over come any time management obstacles. The time limits would
provide a gauge on proficiency and a stopping point to look at hints, or
explanations. This would help everyone who will working on a problem for
hours
with arriving at a fix. Given time, everyone will try every command and all
fixes, while spending time on CCO and Doc CD for hours and hours when all
they
need is a clock reference that says, "Times up, here's a hint." If after that
hint you reach another time reference, you should get another, "Here's
another
hint" or "The solution is X, you need you practice/technology background."
Tom
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> At 4:47 PM -0500 4/19/02, DAN DORTON wrote:
> >When I say your own I mean...
> >
> >Give them a major net 135.50.0.0/16, or something like that.
> >
> >Then say R2 tokenring needs to be a /28.
> >
> >R3 to R5 P2P connection needs to have no more than two host addresses.
> >
> >So on & so forth.
> >
> >Make them work a bit to figure it out.
> >
> >This was vital to my understanding of subnettting/VLSM/CIDR.
> >
> >I thought I really knew all this stuff well until I hit the rack.
> >
> >Then I realized after 8 months that now I can crank it out without
> >even thinking about it & how little I really did know.
> >
> >Also as far as time is concerned.
> >
> >I can address & get layer 2 operational on a 10 router lab in less
> >than an hour. frame/atm/switching/ the works.
> >
> >Helps pound all the meaningless stuff that you might overlook into
> >your head so far that you can never forget it.
> >
> >Of course this is just my opinion.
>
> And a good one, because you are opening up a whole area of discussion
> on addressing models for study. My practice is generally to use lots
> of /24 and smaller, except when doing BGP models that call for
> multilevel aggregation. My rationale for using /24, and often
> smaller, is to force people out of classful thinking.
>
> I do have a couple of variants, one of which is like yours -- a
> single /16, and another that has two or three /16 to force some
> discontiguous networks.
>
> What I hear you saying is that having one large network number allows
> you to focus on learning the hierarchical aspects of VLSM/CIDR. The
> only problem I have with doing that generally is that you won't have
> problems with auto-summary and discontiguous networks.
>
> Thanks. Good stuff.
>
> Howard
> _________________________________________________________________
> Commercial lab list: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/commercial.html
> Please discuss commercial lab solutions on this list.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=42667&t=42667
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
