From: Brian (signal@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Nov 08 2001 - 17:46:14 GMT-3
On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Larson, Chris (Contractor) wrote:
> Saying you had to do OSPF with authentication does not break the
> confidentiality agreement (as far as my understanding in dealing w/ Cisco).
I will have to disagree. I believe telling someone you had OSPF with
authentication is a violation of NDA. Think about it, I if thats ok, then
its ok to tell them you had 3 routers in a reflector, that you had a point
to multipoint 3 router frame cloud, a dial backup between 2 of them, and a
DLSW border peer. I mean none of those gives a question
away...........but it pretty much divulges your lab.
> That does not disclose a question, an answer or the content of exam
> materials. Everyone knows you could get OSPF and therefore you need to know
> all the knobs for OSPF.
But now that person knows they need to know that, no matter how obvious.
There may not be a lab out there with ISIS. Maybe there is, maybe there
isn't. Sure, it IS testable, but does a lab exist? Not necessarly. So
we study it, we know it cold. If we get it we are covered. Well what if
people started posting what they had on there lab. And no one posted
ISIS? Well then no one would study it. What if people posted they had
ISIS, well then people would make sure to study it. This is unfair
advantage. You are to know all the technologies in the blueprint outlined
by cisco, and be able to make 80 points. Sure, no one knows everything
like a master. But know enough core, and enough of the surrounding
technolgies, and with fate in your favor, you will do it.
>
> If you said in the exam in section 3 I had to do ospf w/ authentication in
> area 0 which was router x, y, and Z then you have a problem.
>
> I have discussed this with Cisco before when assisting with a lab prep
> course and this is basically what they had said. They also stated that
> anything that is already public knowledge is not breaking the
> confidentiality agreement. Therefore since the blueprint for the exam talks
> about OSPF, saying you had OSPF is not a violation. Again saying you had
> ospf between routers x and z and giving away topology info is!!
I think you are wrong on this. Who cares if its router r2 and r5? If you
say you had an OSPF virtual link between "two routers", and you had ospf
authentication, and OSPF redistribution into EIGRP.........then in my
opinion, you just gave away all that is needed for the OSPF points
(assuming this was the actual lab).
>
> That is my understanding. We almost all know what we will get in the exam
> (just watching this list is the best indication). It is the combination of
> items, knobs, technologies and topologies and how they are mixed that makes
> the exam hard.
People have never made a habit of posting what technologies they had on
the lab here. Its wrong. I would hate to see:
"Just got back from the lab, and I passed! I can't tell you what the
questions were, but I had ATM (CLIP ), Frame Relay (one PtP and 1->2 Point
to Multi), EIGRP, I had some DLSW icanreaches, umm, BGP Confederation, and
an encrypted tunnel...........o and a IPX EIGRP wan........*don't forget
about split horizon* wink wink....can't give you the question though"
I mean, I hope no one else thinks thats ok. And those that do, probably
aren't CCIE's.
Brian
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: david [mailto:barbedwireblack@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 12:44 PM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: one day format
>
>
> so if i tell somebody that during my lab
> i had to configure ospf authentication
> that would be a NDA violation?
> Cisco says that anything in the 12.1 IOS is
> fair game except for the topics that have been
> excluded.
> So why can't you tell someone that your lab
> included a topic that is in on the DOC CD.
>
> Configuring OSPF authentication can be pretty
> complicated seen a lot of posts on it.
> telling someone would not alleviate the
> time and effort needed to correctly implement
> this feature in a test environment or live production.
>
> I beleive the NDA is supposed to be a way to keep
> people from memorizing the exact test without
> knowing or understanding the technologies.
> To stop things like the MCSE transcender phenomenon.
> Thus guaranteeing some degree of competency
> in the individuals who attain certification.
>
> I beleive it would be impossible to memorize
> scenarios for the CCIE lab without a good
> understanding of the features, caveats, and
> interworkings of the Cisco IOS.
>
> which i beleive the certification is trying
> to discern if you have this knowledge or not.
>
> I could be wrong happens lots of times.
>
> thanks for the feedback,
> David
>
>
>
> --- "@ Home NetMail" <tveillette@home.com> wrote:
> > Absolutely an NDA issue, anything specific, and
> > configuring a router as a
> > tftp is very specific. As long as you are going
> > after the 15th anything in
> > 12.1 can be tested.
> >
> > As for the IP addressing, it will be crystal clear
> > once the proctor brief's
> > you and
> > you get started. IP addressing will be a non-issue
> > at this level, at least
> > so far, as
> > they stated in the CCIE webcast a while back, there
> > aren't any installed
> > issues...
> > YET.
> >
> > -Todd
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: david david <barbedwireblack@yahoo.com>
> > To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 10:31 AM
> > Subject: one day format
> >
> >
> > > who has taken the new 1 day format?
> > >
> > > i'm not quite sure what to expect.
> > > they say the ip addressing is already done for
> > you.
> > > does that mean the routers are proconfiged or are
> > > they just on the diagram. not sure.
> > > trying to find out.
> > >
> > > Some people have elluded to obscure topics but
> > > no one will say what kind of topics.
> > > It shouldn't be NDA to say that ( being able
> > > to configure a router as a tftp server was a topic
> > )
> > > Should it?
> > > Do anybody you have any idea what these
> > > obscure topics are.
> > >
> > > thanks in advance,
> > > David
> > >
> > >
> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jun 21 2002 - 06:45:10 GMT-3