RE: CCIE Lab Report - unsuccesful

[Steve Smith]

Hey at least you had the guts to try Chuck. That says a lot. Hang in
there. There is no doubt you will not be a soon to be CCIE much longer.
Thanks for all your input also.

Steve

-Original Message-
From: Chuck Larrieu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 8:34 PM
To: Cisco Mail List
Subject: CCIE Lab Report - unsuccesful


Hey, everyone, how you all been?

The short story is I did not make it to day 2. The rest of this is a bit
long winded, and easily skipped.

First of all, I was quite pleased to find upon reading through my Day 1
scenario that there was nothing I couldn't do, given time. There are
plenty
of practice labs from several different sources which cover all the core
topics, so there were no surprises for me.

Secondly, I was quite pleased when during my review of Day 1 results
with
the proctor,  he told me they were going to change the written
instruction
on a particular section because of the solution I used. I'm actually
quite
surprised it hasn't been done before. I was grudgingly given points,
although I was told my solution was definitely not what they had in
mind.

However, in the end,  it was a few simple omissions that cost me the
points
I would have needed to squeak into Day 2.

Only one of the six of us who began together was invited to the second
day.

Things I learned:

1) having the core topics down cold is CRUCIAL. No kidding!

2) Time is crucial, but not, I believe, in the way I have seen it
discussed
in many places. I highly doubt that typing 80 words a minute versus my
20
WPM was the difference. Not when I spent as much time as I did
contemplating. You  can't think it. You have to know it.

By 2:00 p.m. I knew I didn't have a prayer of hitting all the
requirements.
At that point I started counting points, putting myself in a defensive
mode.
By quitting time, if I got full credit for everything I thought I
deserved,
I would have had 31 points. As I found out in my review, I missed a few
simple things, and blew myself out of the water. This leads back to the
internalization of the core topics. You can't be thinking about how to
configure anything. You have to just bang them out, the same way you
bang
out shaving or washing your hands or eating your lunch.

3) Methodology is crucial. You have to have a good methodology that is
internalized and is habitual. You can't be thinking "what's next?" I
don't
believe it matters what your methodology is, so long as you are
consistent
and quick. My own methodology failed me because I was constantly
adjusting,
rather than banging it out.

4) I spent a good two hours last night in my hotel room debriefing
myself. I
have six pages of notes regarding my day one experience. This will form
the
basis of my study plan for my second attempt.  I know that it is highly
unlikely I will have a scenario like the one I just worked on next time
through. But I will focus on methodology and speed.

5) Good rapport with the proctor is helpful. I was able to get the
information I needed by carefully wording my questions and making sure
that
my desired result was understood. The proctor is under a bit of stress
himself, with so many folks vying for his attention. He may think you
are
asking something you are not. I made sure that if I was not getting an
answer that made sense that I clarified my request, so that the answer
was
one that helped me understand.  I will say also that the test I saw was
reasonably clear. The questions I had tended to be the result of outputs
from various show and debug commands, to clarify what the expectation
was.

A few other comments:

I was far too aggressive in scheduling my lab date.  Should have pushed
it
out 60 days. Don't be in a hurry. Those without a lot of hands on need
to
spend several months of several hours a day practicing. No two ways
about
it.

There has been a lot of discussion about the patch panels used in the
lab.
All I can say is that the panels are clearly labeled. IMHO you have
nothing
to worry about. That said, I did have to revisit the rack twice, in
order to
make a cabling change. This was purely the result of a chicken or egg
situation, and not due to any difficulty with the rack itself. People
with
home labs know well the issue with hooking up routers back to back.

I sat next to a guy this morning ( a day 1 candidate ) who was getting
up
every few minutes and going to the back of the rack to move cables
around.
Completely unnecessary and driving the proctor nuts. There is no need
for
any candidate to touch the back of the rack.

You can't let little stuff stop you. Those with extensive hands on
experience know that sometimes routers do funny things like boot into
rommon> or behave as if there is an extensive paste going on in the
configuration dialogue. I have a router here at home that boots into
rommon
once in a while. A reload has always done the trick ( knock on wood )
sometimes leaning on control-C will stop a misbehaving configuration
dialogue. No this is not NDA becau

Re: CCIE Lab Report - unsuccesful

[Marty Adkins]

John Hardman wrote:
> 
> I sniped most of your report below with the exception of point #5. I have
> been trying to form a picture of the lab, trying to make it a part of me
> that I visit on a regular basis. When I was in Taekwon-Do I found that the
> more time I spent in visualization the better I got. It goes beyond just
> "seeing it", but a total emersion in the expeirence. And this is what I have
> been trying to do with the lab, so a little more detail will help me fill
> out my vision... NDA permiting, what can be asked of the proctor?
> 
For a little visualization, point your browser to
http://www.tara.ca/ourlabs/ccie.html and peak at Halifax.
They're redesigned their site -- they used to have a Quicktime 360 degree
"movie" of the lab.  Back when I was still teaching CCIE prep classes
I used to show it to people.  It helped take the edge off of the unknown.

  Marty Adkins Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Mentor Technologies  Phone: 240-568-6526
  133 National Business Pkwy   WWW: http://www.mentortech.com
  Annapolis Junction, MD  20701Cisco CCIE #1289
_
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: CCIE Lab Report - unsuccesful

[Tim Ross]

Chuck,

I am surprised that you didn't pass on the first attempt (you're scaring
me). But I also think that it is an important part of the process. My first
attempt will be in August. Failing the Lab makes us see the value and
difficulty of the lab; appreciate the level of expertise required to pass;
and the only way this certification can hold its value in the future. You
said that you could do everything in the lab, but overlooked some simple
things that kept you out of Day 2. It might be something completely
different for me, but the Lab is where we find these things out, so we will
be detail oriented, and at a consistent level of expertise when passing the
lab.

Study hard and good luck,

Tim


- Original Message -
From: "Chuck Larrieu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Cisco Mail List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 6:34 PM
Subject: CCIE Lab Report - unsuccesful


> Hey, everyone, how you all been?
>
> The short story is I did not make it to day 2. The rest of this is a bit
> long winded, and easily skipped.
>
> First of all, I was quite pleased to find upon reading through my Day 1
> scenario that there was nothing I couldn't do, given time. There are
plenty
> of practice labs from several different sources which cover all the core
> topics, so there were no surprises for me.
>
> Secondly, I was quite pleased when during my review of Day 1 results with
> the proctor,  he told me they were going to change the written instruction
> on a particular section because of the solution I used. I'm actually quite
> surprised it hasn't been done before. I was grudgingly given points,
> although I was told my solution was definitely not what they had in mind.
>
> However, in the end,  it was a few simple omissions that cost me the
points
> I would have needed to squeak into Day 2.
>
> Only one of the six of us who began together was invited to the second
day.
>
> Things I learned:
>
> 1) having the core topics down cold is CRUCIAL. No kidding!
>
> 2) Time is crucial, but not, I believe, in the way I have seen it
discussed
> in many places. I highly doubt that typing 80 words a minute versus my 20
> WPM was the difference. Not when I spent as much time as I did
> contemplating. You  can't think it. You have to know it.
>
> By 2:00 p.m. I knew I didn't have a prayer of hitting all the
requirements.
> At that point I started counting points, putting myself in a defensive
mode.
> By quitting time, if I got full credit for everything I thought I
deserved,
> I would have had 31 points. As I found out in my review, I missed a few
> simple things, and blew myself out of the water. This leads back to the
> internalization of the core topics. You can't be thinking about how to
> configure anything. You have to just bang them out, the same way you bang
> out shaving or washing your hands or eating your lunch.
>
> 3) Methodology is crucial. You have to have a good methodology that is
> internalized and is habitual. You can't be thinking "what's next?" I don't
> believe it matters what your methodology is, so long as you are consistent
> and quick. My own methodology failed me because I was constantly
adjusting,
> rather than banging it out.
>
> 4) I spent a good two hours last night in my hotel room debriefing myself.
I
> have six pages of notes regarding my day one experience. This will form
the
> basis of my study plan for my second attempt.  I know that it is highly
> unlikely I will have a scenario like the one I just worked on next time
> through. But I will focus on methodology and speed.
>
> 5) Good rapport with the proctor is helpful. I was able to get the
> information I needed by carefully wording my questions and making sure
that
> my desired result was understood. The proctor is under a bit of stress
> himself, with so many folks vying for his attention. He may think you are
> asking something you are not. I made sure that if I was not getting an
> answer that made sense that I clarified my request, so that the answer was
> one that helped me understand.  I will say also that the test I saw was
> reasonably clear. The questions I had tended to be the result of outputs
> from various show and debug commands, to clarify what the expectation was.
>
> A few other comments:
>
> I was far too aggressive in scheduling my lab date.  Should have pushed it
> out 60 days. Don't be in a hurry. Those without a lot of hands on need to
> spend several months of several hours a day practicing. No two ways about
> it.
>
> There has been a lot of discussion about the patch panels used in the lab.
> All I can say is that the panels are clearly labeled. IMHO you have
nothing
> to worry about. That said, I did have to revisit the rack twice, in order
to
> make a cabling change. This was purely the result of a chicken or egg
> situation, and not due to any difficulty with the rack itself. People with
> home labs know well the issue with hooking up routers back to back.
>
> I sat next to a guy this morning ( a day 

Re: CCIE Lab Report - unsuccesful

[Lou Nelson]

Chuck,
Thank You.  Over the past year + you have been a mentor (and Joe) to many of
us.  As you had success, many of us were inspired.  I know I was always a
few steps behind ya... with the NA then NP then DA then DP... now I just got
my ATM specialization so on to the written.  But thru all this you have
inspired.  Now , you inspire not with success but by being positive when it
would be easy to get negative and push blame every where else.  Stay in
there... there are many of us lurkers (I do post on occasion) wishing the
best for you!

Lou





""Chuck Larrieu"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
000d01c0bfcc$08c90800$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:000d01c0bfcc$08c90800$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hey, everyone, how you all been?
>
> The short story is I did not make it to day 2. The rest of this is a bit
> long winded, and easily skipped.
>
> First of all, I was quite pleased to find upon reading through my Day 1
> scenario that there was nothing I couldn't do, given time. There are
plenty
> of practice labs from several different sources which cover all the core
> topics, so there were no surprises for me.
>
> Secondly, I was quite pleased when during my review of Day 1 results with
> the proctor,  he told me they were going to change the written instruction
> on a particular section because of the solution I used. I'm actually quite
> surprised it hasn't been done before. I was grudgingly given points,
> although I was told my solution was definitely not what they had in mind.
>
> However, in the end,  it was a few simple omissions that cost me the
points
> I would have needed to squeak into Day 2.
>
> Only one of the six of us who began together was invited to the second
day.
>
> Things I learned:
>
> 1) having the core topics down cold is CRUCIAL. No kidding!
>
> 2) Time is crucial, but not, I believe, in the way I have seen it
discussed
> in many places. I highly doubt that typing 80 words a minute versus my 20
> WPM was the difference. Not when I spent as much time as I did
> contemplating. You  can't think it. You have to know it.
>
> By 2:00 p.m. I knew I didn't have a prayer of hitting all the
requirements.
> At that point I started counting points, putting myself in a defensive
mode.
> By quitting time, if I got full credit for everything I thought I
deserved,
> I would have had 31 points. As I found out in my review, I missed a few
> simple things, and blew myself out of the water. This leads back to the
> internalization of the core topics. You can't be thinking about how to
> configure anything. You have to just bang them out, the same way you bang
> out shaving or washing your hands or eating your lunch.
>
> 3) Methodology is crucial. You have to have a good methodology that is
> internalized and is habitual. You can't be thinking "what's next?" I don't
> believe it matters what your methodology is, so long as you are consistent
> and quick. My own methodology failed me because I was constantly
adjusting,
> rather than banging it out.
>
> 4) I spent a good two hours last night in my hotel room debriefing myself.
I
> have six pages of notes regarding my day one experience. This will form
the
> basis of my study plan for my second attempt.  I know that it is highly
> unlikely I will have a scenario like the one I just worked on next time
> through. But I will focus on methodology and speed.
>
> 5) Good rapport with the proctor is helpful. I was able to get the
> information I needed by carefully wording my questions and making sure
that
> my desired result was understood. The proctor is under a bit of stress
> himself, with so many folks vying for his attention. He may think you are
> asking something you are not. I made sure that if I was not getting an
> answer that made sense that I clarified my request, so that the answer was
> one that helped me understand.  I will say also that the test I saw was
> reasonably clear. The questions I had tended to be the result of outputs
> from various show and debug commands, to clarify what the expectation was.
>
> A few other comments:
>
> I was far too aggressive in scheduling my lab date.  Should have pushed it
> out 60 days. Don't be in a hurry. Those without a lot of hands on need to
> spend several months of several hours a day practicing. No two ways about
> it.
>
> There has been a lot of discussion about the patch panels used in the lab.
> All I can say is that the panels are clearly labeled. IMHO you have
nothing
> to worry about. That said, I did have to revisit the rack twice, in order
to
> make a cabling change. This was purely the result of a chicken or egg
> situation, and not due to any difficulty with the rack itself. People with
> home labs know well the issue with hooking up routers back to back.
>
> I sat next to a guy this morning ( a day 1 candidate ) who was getting up
> every few minutes and going to the back of the rack to move cables around.
> Completely unnecessary and driving the proctor nuts. There is no need for
> any candidate to

RE: CCIE Lab Report - unsuccesful

[Urooj's Hi-speed Internet]

Hi Chuck,
Thanks for taking the time to narrate your candid and thorough post-lab
experiences. The outcome should not discourage you as the whole group
remains impressed with your wealth of knowledge, the desire to know more,
and your fine power of expression. I have been there too, and finally sailed
through. Believe me, the pleasure of conquering it would be immense. Just
hang-in there without losing your sense of direction and you will succeed.
Best of luck.

Aziz S. Islam
All the CCXX (Routing & Switching)

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Chuck Larrieu
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 9:34 PM
To: Cisco Mail List
Subject: CCIE Lab Report - unsuccesful


Hey, everyone, how you all been?

The short story is I did not make it to day 2. The rest of this is a bit
long winded, and easily skipped.

First of all, I was quite pleased to find upon reading through my Day 1
scenario that there was nothing I couldn't do, given time. There are plenty
of practice labs from several different sources which cover all the core
topics, so there were no surprises for me.

Secondly, I was quite pleased when during my review of Day 1 results with
the proctor,  he told me they were going to change the written instruction
on a particular section because of the solution I used. I'm actually quite
surprised it hasn't been done before. I was grudgingly given points,
although I was told my solution was definitely not what they had in mind.

However, in the end,  it was a few simple omissions that cost me the points
I would have needed to squeak into Day 2.

Only one of the six of us who began together was invited to the second day.

Things I learned:

1) having the core topics down cold is CRUCIAL. No kidding!

2) Time is crucial, but not, I believe, in the way I have seen it discussed
in many places. I highly doubt that typing 80 words a minute versus my 20
WPM was the difference. Not when I spent as much time as I did
contemplating. You  can't think it. You have to know it.

By 2:00 p.m. I knew I didn't have a prayer of hitting all the requirements.
At that point I started counting points, putting myself in a defensive mode.
By quitting time, if I got full credit for everything I thought I deserved,
I would have had 31 points. As I found out in my review, I missed a few
simple things, and blew myself out of the water. This leads back to the
internalization of the core topics. You can't be thinking about how to
configure anything. You have to just bang them out, the same way you bang
out shaving or washing your hands or eating your lunch.

3) Methodology is crucial. You have to have a good methodology that is
internalized and is habitual. You can't be thinking "what's next?" I don't
believe it matters what your methodology is, so long as you are consistent
and quick. My own methodology failed me because I was constantly adjusting,
rather than banging it out.

4) I spent a good two hours last night in my hotel room debriefing myself. I
have six pages of notes regarding my day one experience. This will form the
basis of my study plan for my second attempt.  I know that it is highly
unlikely I will have a scenario like the one I just worked on next time
through. But I will focus on methodology and speed.

5) Good rapport with the proctor is helpful. I was able to get the
information I needed by carefully wording my questions and making sure that
my desired result was understood. The proctor is under a bit of stress
himself, with so many folks vying for his attention. He may think you are
asking something you are not. I made sure that if I was not getting an
answer that made sense that I clarified my request, so that the answer was
one that helped me understand.  I will say also that the test I saw was
reasonably clear. The questions I had tended to be the result of outputs
from various show and debug commands, to clarify what the expectation was.

A few other comments:

I was far too aggressive in scheduling my lab date.  Should have pushed it
out 60 days. Don't be in a hurry. Those without a lot of hands on need to
spend several months of several hours a day practicing. No two ways about
it.

There has been a lot of discussion about the patch panels used in the lab.
All I can say is that the panels are clearly labeled. IMHO you have nothing
to worry about. That said, I did have to revisit the rack twice, in order to
make a cabling change. This was purely the result of a chicken or egg
situation, and not due to any difficulty with the rack itself. People with
home labs know well the issue with hooking up routers back to back.

I sat next to a guy this morning ( a day 1 candidate ) who was getting up
every few minutes and going to the back of the rack to move cables around.
Completely unnecessary and driving the proctor nuts. There is no need for
any candidate to touch the back of the rack.

You can't let little stuff stop you. Those with extensive hands on
experience know that 

Re: CCIE Lab Report - unsuccesful

[Cisco Kidd]

Sorry about that Chuck...I dont know you but after reading this I can
feel your pain. You will get it next time...

Thanks for the info. :-)

>From: "Chuck Larrieu" >Reply-To: "Chuck Larrieu" >To: "Cisco Mail List"
>Subject: CCIE Lab Report - unsuccesful >Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 18:34:20
-0700 > >Hey, everyone, how you all been? > >The short story is I did not
make it to day 2. The rest of this is a bit >long winded, and easily
skipped. > >First of all, I was quite pleased to find upon reading
through my Day 1 >scenario that there was nothing I couldn't do, given
time. There are plenty >of practice labs from several different sources
which cover all the core >topics, so there were no surprises for me. >
>Secondly, I was quite pleased when during my review of Day 1 results
with >the proctor, he told me they were going to change the written
instruction >on a particular section because of the solution I used. I'm
actually quite >surprised it hasn't been done before. I was grudgingly
given points, >although I was told my solution was definitely not what
they had in mind. > >However, in the end, it was a few simple omissions
that cost me the points >I would have needed to squeak into Day 2. >
>Only one of the six of us who began together was invited to the second
day. > >Things I learned: > >1) having the core topics down cold is
CRUCIAL. No kidding! > >2) Time is crucial, but not, I believe, in the
way I have seen it discussed >in many places. I highly doubt that typing
80 words a minute versus my 20 >WPM was the difference. Not when I spent
as much time as I did >contemplating. You can't think it. You have to
know it. > >By 2:00 p.m. I knew I didn't have a prayer of hitting all the
requirements. >At that point I started counting points, putting myself in
a defensive mode. >By quitting time, if I got full credit for everything
I thought I deserved, >I would have had 31 points. As I found out in my
review, I missed a few >simple things, and blew myself out of the water.
This leads back to the >internalization of the core topics. You can't be
thinking about how to >configure anything. You have to just bang them
out, the same way you bang >out shaving or washing your hands or eating
your lunch. > >3) Methodology is crucial. You have to have a good
methodology that is >internalized and is habitual. You can't be thinking
"what's next?" I don't >believe it matters what your methodology is, so
long as you are consistent >and quick. My own methodology failed me
because I was constantly adjusting, >rather than banging it out. > >4) I
spent a good two hours last night in my hotel room debriefing myself. I
>have six pages of notes regarding my day one experience. This will form
the >basis of my study plan for my second attempt. I know that it is
highly >unlikely I will have a scenario like the one I just worked on
next time >through. But I will focus on methodology and speed. > >5) Good
rapport with the proctor is helpful. I was able to get the >information I
needed by carefully wording my questions and making sure that >my desired
result was understood. The proctor is under a bit of stress >himself,
with so many folks vying for his attention. He may think you are >asking
something you are not. I made sure that if I was not getting an >answer
that made sense that I clarified my request, so that the answer was >one
that helped me understand. I will say also that the test I saw was
>reasonably clear. The questions I had tended to be the result of outputs
>from various show and debug commands, to clarify what the expectation
was. > >A few other comments: > >I was far too aggressive in scheduling
my lab date. Should have pushed it >out 60 days. Don't be in a hurry.
Those without a lot of hands on need to >spend several months of several
hours a day practicing. No two ways about >it. > >There has been a lot of
discussion about the patch panels used in the lab. >All I can say is that
the panels are clearly labeled. IMHO you have nothing >to worry about.
That said, I did have to revisit the rack twice, in order to >make a
cabling change. This was purely the result of a chicken or egg
>situation, and not due to any difficulty with the rack itself. People
with >home labs know well the issue with hooking up routers back to back.
> >I sat next to a guy this morning ( a day 1 candidate ) who was getting
up >every few minutes and going to the back of the rack to move cables
around. >Completely unnecessary and driving the proctor nuts. There is no
need for >any candidate to touch the back of the rack. > >You can't let
little stuff stop you. Those with extensive hands on >experience know
that sometimes routers do funny things like boot into >rommon> or behave
as if there is an extensive paste going on in the >configuration
dialogue. I have a router here at home that boots into rommon >once in a
while. A reload has always done the trick ( knock on wood ) >sometimes
leaning on control-C will stop a misbehaving configuration >dialogue. No

Re: CCIE Lab Report - unsuccesful

[W. Alan Robertson]

Chuck,

Sorry to hear about the outcome of your practical exam.  Take solice in the fact
that so many people have to retake it.  It is a testament to the certification's
value, and to the ability of those that make it.  Persistance separates life's
winners from life's losers.  At some point, you'll get there, and the sense of
satifsafaction will be delicious.  :)

Speaking of persistance, I know a guy that bills himself as "The World's Worst
CCIE."  He took six attempts to pass the written exam, and then took six trips
to Raleigh for the practical.  He was not being sponsored by his employer
either...  That's $7200.00 in various exam fees alone, not including travel
costs.  I worked with him on a project for several months, and he was no dummy.
By my estimation, Murphy's law comes into play.  A lab candidate will invariably
draw the lab scenario for which he is least prepared.  That's just how it seems
to work out.

I read your report more than once, and with great interest.  Thanks for taking
the time to provide your insight and observations.  One of the frustrating
things about preparing for this, particularly gearing up for the first attempt,
is the uncertainty.

For instance, I'm pretty good at DLSw.  I've been fortunate enough to use it in
a very large production environment.  In my implementation, we used TCP
encapsulation exclusively, with static peering.  Is it enough that I know about
the other means of encapsulation, or dynamic peering?  My environment was SNA.
I haven't used it with NetBIOS...  Is the behavior identical?  Can I skip
preparing for DLSw because of my experience with it, or do I need to reserve
some of my precious time for DLSw experimentation?

Another example: I'm a whiz with Frame-Relay.  Until a week ago, I was in the
midst of a huge frame deployment, some 1500 sites.  That said, it was a fairly
vanilla environment.  Nothing special about it.  Looking for confidence, I was
looking at the Frame Configuration Guide on CCO last night, with the expectation
that I was gonna know most of it.  It was a big mistake.  There were so many
commands that I had never used, nor did I know they even existed.  I knew I'd
want to revisit frame the old fashioned way (I've been using
subinterface/point-to-point for so long, I hardly remember building frame-relay
maps by hand), and revist split horizons, but geeze...

I could spend from today until July (my 1st lab exam) covering these two topics,
topics that I feel good about, and still not get close to what I'd consider
"Full Mastery."

Understand that I'm not a paper anything.  I don't have my CCNA ot CCNP.  I
passed the written exam with virtually no studying, because I have been working
with Cisco routers since '94, and because I have never been satisfied knowing
how to do something without having a pretty good understanding of the how/why
what I was doing worked.  I came into this process with the expectation that
because of my background, I'd have a more difficult time with the esoteric
detail of the written exam than I would with the lab.  I am a hands-on guy.

Accounts, such as yours, are an invaluable resource to me, not because they
remove the uncertainty, but I feel like they help me manage the uncertainty.  I
hear what I need to hear: If you're good at what you do and you prepare
effectively, you can and will be successful.

Thanks.

Alan~

- Original Message -
From: "Chuck Larrieu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Cisco Mail List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 9:34 PM
Subject: CCIE Lab Report - unsuccesful
_
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: CCIE Lab Report - unsuccesful

[Bob Vance]

Well, this news is certainly a blow -- I felt as if *I* had failed :|

Of course, if it weren't hard, who'd want it?
When you pass the next time, it will be just that much more special :)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

You still da man, in my book!


-
Tks| 
BV | 
Sr. Technical Consultant,  SBM, A Gates/Arrow Co.
Vox 770-623-3430   11455 Lakefield Dr.
Fax 770-623-3429   Duluth, GA 30097-1511
=





-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Chuck Larrieu
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 9:34 PM
To: Cisco Mail List
Subject: CCIE Lab Report - unsuccesful


Hey, everyone, how you all been?

The short story is I did not make it to day 2. The rest of this is a bit
long winded, and easily skipped.

First of all, I was quite pleased to find upon reading through my Day 1
scenario that there was nothing I couldn't do, given time. There are
plenty
of practice labs from several different sources which cover all the core
topics, so there were no surprises for me.

Secondly, I was quite pleased when during my review of Day 1 results
with
the proctor,  he told me they were going to change the written
instruction
on a particular section because of the solution I used. I'm actually
quite
surprised it hasn't been done before. I was grudgingly given points,
although I was told my solution was definitely not what they had in
mind.

However, in the end,  it was a few simple omissions that cost me the
points
I would have needed to squeak into Day 2.

Only one of the six of us who began together was invited to the second
day.

Things I learned:

1) having the core topics down cold is CRUCIAL. No kidding!

2) Time is crucial, but not, I believe, in the way I have seen it
discussed
in many places. I highly doubt that typing 80 words a minute versus my
20
WPM was the difference. Not when I spent as much time as I did
contemplating. You  can't think it. You have to know it.

By 2:00 p.m. I knew I didn't have a prayer of hitting all the
requirements.
At that point I started counting points, putting myself in a defensive
mode.
By quitting time, if I got full credit for everything I thought I
deserved,
I would have had 31 points. As I found out in my review, I missed a few
simple things, and blew myself out of the water. This leads back to the
internalization of the core topics. You can't be thinking about how to
configure anything. You have to just bang them out, the same way you
bang
out shaving or washing your hands or eating your lunch.

3) Methodology is crucial. You have to have a good methodology that is
internalized and is habitual. You can't be thinking "what's next?" I
don't
believe it matters what your methodology is, so long as you are
consistent
and quick. My own methodology failed me because I was constantly
adjusting,
rather than banging it out.

4) I spent a good two hours last night in my hotel room debriefing
myself. I
have six pages of notes regarding my day one experience. This will form
the
basis of my study plan for my second attempt.  I know that it is highly
unlikely I will have a scenario like the one I just worked on next time
through. But I will focus on methodology and speed.

5) Good rapport with the proctor is helpful. I was able to get the
information I needed by carefully wording my questions and making sure
that
my desired result was understood. The proctor is under a bit of stress
himself, with so many folks vying for his attention. He may think you
are
asking something you are not. I made sure that if I was not getting an
answer that made sense that I clarified my request, so that the answer
was
one that helped me understand.  I will say also that the test I saw was
reasonably clear. The questions I had tended to be the result of outputs
from various show and debug commands, to clarify what the expectation
was.

A few other comments:

I was far too aggressive in scheduling my lab date.  Should have pushed
it
out 60 days. Don't be in a hurry. Those without a lot of hands on need
to
spend several months of several hours a day practicing. No two ways
about
it.

There has been a lot of discussion about the patch panels used in the
lab.
All I can say is that the panels are clearly labeled. IMHO you have
nothing
to worry about. That said, I did have to revisit the rack twice, in
order to
make a cabling change. This was purely the result of a chicken or egg
situation, and not due to any difficulty with the rack itself. People
with
home labs know well the issue with hooking up routers back to back.

I sat next to a guy this morning ( a day 1 candidate ) who was getting
up
every few minutes and going to the back of the rack to move cables
around.
Completely unnecessary and driving the proctor nuts. There is no need
for
any candidate to touch the back of the rack.

You can't let litt

Re: CCIE Lab Report - unsuccesful

[EA Louie]

Chuck - as a 2-time failer, I can empathize with you.  You sound like a real
trooper, and I'm very confident that *your* next time through will be
passing with flying colors.

Your #3 is extremely critical for anyone who takes the exam.  There are
moments (usually in the beginning of the test) where one asks themself
"WTF?", and if they stay there for too long, all the blood leaves the brain.
Therefore, that 15-25 minutes that you'd spend with methodology and keeping
with a plan is oh-so-critical.

Thanks very much for sharing your experience with us - hopefully, the other
CCIE lab hopefuls will be encouraged and keep studying hard for the lab.

-e-

- Original Message -
From: Chuck Larrieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Cisco Mail List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 6:34 PM
Subject: CCIE Lab Report - unsuccesful


> Hey, everyone, how you all been?
>
> The short story is I did not make it to day 2. The rest of this is a bit
> long winded, and easily skipped.
>
> First of all, I was quite pleased to find upon reading through my Day 1
> scenario that there was nothing I couldn't do, given time. There are
plenty
> of practice labs from several different sources which cover all the core
> topics, so there were no surprises for me.
>
> Secondly, I was quite pleased when during my review of Day 1 results with
> the proctor,  he told me they were going to change the written instruction
> on a particular section because of the solution I used. I'm actually quite
> surprised it hasn't been done before. I was grudgingly given points,
> although I was told my solution was definitely not what they had in mind.
>
> However, in the end,  it was a few simple omissions that cost me the
points
> I would have needed to squeak into Day 2.
>
> Only one of the six of us who began together was invited to the second
day.
>
> Things I learned:
>
> 1) having the core topics down cold is CRUCIAL. No kidding!
>
> 2) Time is crucial, but not, I believe, in the way I have seen it
discussed
> in many places. I highly doubt that typing 80 words a minute versus my 20
> WPM was the difference. Not when I spent as much time as I did
> contemplating. You  can't think it. You have to know it.
>
> By 2:00 p.m. I knew I didn't have a prayer of hitting all the
requirements.
> At that point I started counting points, putting myself in a defensive
mode.
> By quitting time, if I got full credit for everything I thought I
deserved,
> I would have had 31 points. As I found out in my review, I missed a few
> simple things, and blew myself out of the water. This leads back to the
> internalization of the core topics. You can't be thinking about how to
> configure anything. You have to just bang them out, the same way you bang
> out shaving or washing your hands or eating your lunch.
>
> 3) Methodology is crucial. You have to have a good methodology that is
> internalized and is habitual. You can't be thinking "what's next?" I don't
> believe it matters what your methodology is, so long as you are consistent
> and quick. My own methodology failed me because I was constantly
adjusting,
> rather than banging it out.
>
> 4) I spent a good two hours last night in my hotel room debriefing myself.
I
> have six pages of notes regarding my day one experience. This will form
the
> basis of my study plan for my second attempt.  I know that it is highly
> unlikely I will have a scenario like the one I just worked on next time
> through. But I will focus on methodology and speed.
>
> 5) Good rapport with the proctor is helpful. I was able to get the
> information I needed by carefully wording my questions and making sure
that
> my desired result was understood. The proctor is under a bit of stress
> himself, with so many folks vying for his attention. He may think you are
> asking something you are not. I made sure that if I was not getting an
> answer that made sense that I clarified my request, so that the answer was
> one that helped me understand.  I will say also that the test I saw was
> reasonably clear. The questions I had tended to be the result of outputs
> from various show and debug commands, to clarify what the expectation was.
>
> A few other comments:
>
> I was far too aggressive in scheduling my lab date.  Should have pushed it
> out 60 days. Don't be in a hurry. Those without a lot of hands on need to
> spend several months of several hours a day practicing. No two ways about
> it.
>
> There has been a lot of discussion about the patch panels used in the lab.
> All I can say is that the panels are clearly labeled. IMHO you have
nothing
> to worry about. That said, I did have to revisit the rack twice, in order
to
> make a cabling change. This was purely the result of a chicken or egg
> situation, and not due to any difficulty with the rack itself. People with
> home labs know well the issue with hooking up routers back to back.
>
> I sat next to a guy this morning ( a day 1 candidate ) who was getting up
> every few minutes 

Re: CCIE Lab Report - unsuccesful

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

Chuck,

I am truly sorry, and I am also supremely confident that you will 
someday be Chuck, CCIE.  You have been an example to the group both 
in sharing your preparation methods, and, equally important, your 
philosophical/emotional approach.

Unfortunately, Dilbert's management sometimes wins.  That isn't to 
say, in this case, that the lab wasn't tough but fair. But...things 
happen.

Howard
_
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: CCIE Lab Report - unsuccesful

[ronaldjcw]

Chuck, thanks for your sharing.  Keep working hard, I believe you can do it
finally, and I wish we all do...!!


"Chuck Larrieu" wrote in message
<000d01c0bfcc$08c90800$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Hey, everyone, how you all been?
>
>The short story is I did not make it to day 2. The rest of this is a bit
>long winded, and easily skipped.
>
>First of all, I was quite pleased to find upon reading through my Day 1
>scenario that there was nothing I couldn't do, given time. There are plenty
>of practice labs from several different sources which cover all the core
>topics, so there were no surprises for me.
>
>Secondly, I was quite pleased when during my review of Day 1 results with
>the proctor,  he told me they were going to change the written instruction
>on a particular section because of the solution I used. I'm actually quite
>surprised it hasn't been done before. I was grudgingly given points,
>although I was told my solution was definitely not what they had in mind.
>
>However, in the end,  it was a few simple omissions that cost me the points
>I would have needed to squeak into Day 2.
>
>Only one of the six of us who began together was invited to the second day.
>
>Things I learned:
>
>1) having the core topics down cold is CRUCIAL. No kidding!
>
>2) Time is crucial, but not, I believe, in the way I have seen it discussed
>in many places. I highly doubt that typing 80 words a minute versus my 20
>WPM was the difference. Not when I spent as much time as I did
>contemplating. You  can't think it. You have to know it.
>
>By 2:00 p.m. I knew I didn't have a prayer of hitting all the requirements.
>At that point I started counting points, putting myself in a defensive
mode.
>By quitting time, if I got full credit for everything I thought I deserved,
>I would have had 31 points. As I found out in my review, I missed a few
>simple things, and blew myself out of the water. This leads back to the
>internalization of the core topics. You can't be thinking about how to
>configure anything. You have to just bang them out, the same way you bang
>out shaving or washing your hands or eating your lunch.
>
>3) Methodology is crucial. You have to have a good methodology that is
>internalized and is habitual. You can't be thinking "what's next?" I don't
>believe it matters what your methodology is, so long as you are consistent
>and quick. My own methodology failed me because I was constantly adjusting,
>rather than banging it out.
>
>4) I spent a good two hours last night in my hotel room debriefing myself.
I
>have six pages of notes regarding my day one experience. This will form the
>basis of my study plan for my second attempt.  I know that it is highly
>unlikely I will have a scenario like the one I just worked on next time
>through. But I will focus on methodology and speed.
>
>5) Good rapport with the proctor is helpful. I was able to get the
>information I needed by carefully wording my questions and making sure that
>my desired result was understood. The proctor is under a bit of stress
>himself, with so many folks vying for his attention. He may think you are
>asking something you are not. I made sure that if I was not getting an
>answer that made sense that I clarified my request, so that the answer was
>one that helped me understand.  I will say also that the test I saw was
>reasonably clear. The questions I had tended to be the result of outputs
>from various show and debug commands, to clarify what the expectation was.
>
>A few other comments:
>
>I was far too aggressive in scheduling my lab date.  Should have pushed it
>out 60 days. Don't be in a hurry. Those without a lot of hands on need to
>spend several months of several hours a day practicing. No two ways about
>it.
>
>There has been a lot of discussion about the patch panels used in the lab.
>All I can say is that the panels are clearly labeled. IMHO you have nothing
>to worry about. That said, I did have to revisit the rack twice, in order
to
>make a cabling change. This was purely the result of a chicken or egg
>situation, and not due to any difficulty with the rack itself. People with
>home labs know well the issue with hooking up routers back to back.
>
>I sat next to a guy this morning ( a day 1 candidate ) who was getting up
>every few minutes and going to the back of the rack to move cables around.
>Completely unnecessary and driving the proctor nuts. There is no need for
>any candidate to touch the back of the rack.
>
>You can't let little stuff stop you. Those with extensive hands on
>experience know that sometimes routers do funny things like boot into
>rommon> or behave as if there is an extensive paste going on in the
>configuration dialogue. I have a router here at home that boots into rommon
>once in a while. A reload has always done the trick ( knock on wood )
>sometimes leaning on control-C will stop a misbehaving configuration
>dialogue. No this is not NDA because I did not go to troubleshooting. I
>experienced one of these things as I g

Re: CCIE Lab Report - unsuccesful

[John Hardman]

Hi

Sorry to hear you did not make it thru the first time around.

I have followed your expeirence from close to the start of your list
partisipation. I have not kept pace with you, but really I don't know too
many people with drive of Chuck Larrieu either!! I have learned much from
your questioning and answers, thanks for the input, both here and on the lab
list.

I sniped most of your report below with the exception of point #5. I have
been trying to form a picture of the lab, trying to make it a part of me
that I visit on a regular basis. When I was in Taekwon-Do I found that the
more time I spent in visualization the better I got. It goes beyond just
"seeing it", but a total emersion in the expeirence. And this is what I have
been trying to do with the lab, so a little more detail will help me fill
out my vision... NDA permiting, what can be asked of the proctor?

TIA
--
John Hardman CCNP MCSE


""Chuck Larrieu"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
000d01c0bfcc$08c90800$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:000d01c0bfcc$08c90800$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hey, everyone, how you all been?
>
> The short story is I did not make it to day 2. The rest of this is a bit
> long winded, and easily skipped.
>
> First of all, I was quite pleased to find upon reading through my Day 1
> scenario that there was nothing I couldn't do, given time. There are
plenty
> of practice labs from several different sources which cover all the core
> topics, so there were no surprises for me.
>
> Secondly, I was quite pleased when during my review of Day 1 results with
> the proctor,  he told me they were going to change the written instruction
> on a particular section because of the solution I used. I'm actually quite
> surprised it hasn't been done before. I was grudgingly given points,
> although I was told my solution was definitely not what they had in mind.
>
> However, in the end,  it was a few simple omissions that cost me the
points
> I would have needed to squeak into Day 2.
>
> Only one of the six of us who began together was invited to the second
day.
>
> Things I learned:

<--Snip-->

> 5) Good rapport with the proctor is helpful. I was able to get the
> information I needed by carefully wording my questions and making sure
that
> my desired result was understood. The proctor is under a bit of stress
> himself, with so many folks vying for his attention. He may think you are
> asking something you are not. I made sure that if I was not getting an
> answer that made sense that I clarified my request, so that the answer was
> one that helped me understand.  I will say also that the test I saw was
> reasonably clear. The questions I had tended to be the result of outputs
> from various show and debug commands, to clarify what the expectation was.
>
<--Snip-->
_
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: CCIE Lab Report - unsuccesful

[Andy Barkl]

At 06:34 PM 4/7/2001 -0700, Chuck Larrieu wrote:
>Hey, everyone, how you all been?
>
>The short story is I did not make it to day 2. The rest of this is a bit
>long winded, and easily skipped.


Congratulations Chuck!
My motto is, that it is better to try than not try at all.
We all appreciate your efforts, help to the community, and feedback.
_
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]