Blog
Blog: CCIE Assessor Lab A
Thanks for visiting! If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. This blog posts regular tutorials, news, and study tips about networking, especially about Cisco CCIE related topics. Go ahead, subscribe to the rss feed! You can also receive updates from this blog via email. Thanks for visiting!
I just finished my CCIE Assesor Lab A. I got 72%. I have mixed feelings about this one. The script looks for very specific answers but it gave you a fantastic insight on what Cisco is looking for in terms of configuration and how they mark your exam.
Feel free to read below as it should contain few if any spoilers.
Points Lost Breakdown:
- I lost 2 marks, where i configured a subnet mask wrong! I can’t believe I missed this one. If I had more time to check I might have found it, but it was a stupid mistake. 2 points.
- I got a redistribution question wrong. I’m not sure the script was correct on this one. It said that you had to have a specific metric on a route, and mine did. It was a sub task and I got every other task correct according to the script. 3 points.
- My Router Id didn’t match up on one of the routers even though it didn’t explicitly ask for this particular router-id to be set. 3 points.
- Lost 2 points, for not using a next-hop self even though it wasn’t technically required. I should have read the question more carefully. I read the question and I thought “well you don’t really need that, because we will still have reachability”. I think I was over thinking it and should have just entered the damn command! 2 points
- Stuffed up the easiest question because I missed a step! I totally overlooked the subpoint. Stupid! 1 point.
- Had no idea about a particular type of access-list they were looking for. Never seen this one before. Couldn’t find it on the docCD. I went with a 3 line access-list that did the same thing, but you were only allowed two lines for the complete configuration. 3 points.
So 2+3+3+2+1+3 = 14 marks lost = 36/50 marks = 72%.
I think i should have got an extra 6 of those marks because the script was looking for a very specific solution. Which would have pushed me over the 80% mark. Still I made some really REALLY silly errors. This seems to be happening a lot, and I need to formulate a strategy for double checking everything. I thought I was checking as I was going along, but obviously not hard enough.
Have a read through the comments on my 68 days to go blog post. Scott Vermillion and Tassos, among others both gave me great advice about the CCIE Assessor, and I’m sure glad they did (thanks guys).
Things I noticed:
- Most of the loopbacks address that i have been using in the internetwork expert lab books use the 150.1.x.x/24 range, where x is the router. The lab used a different range for the loopbacks. You wouldn’t believe how many times I typed in 150.1.x.x when a loopback was required. I had to redo a whole BGP section because of it. I think I need to break those habits.
- I really liked the grading scripts. It had its flaws, but you really got a glimpse of how the actual CCIE will be marked. Sure there was no proctor to go through it afterwards, but you really saw what type of solutions they look for. I wish the mock lab’s and other rack rental places had an inbuilt grading script that you could use to get feedback straight away.If anybody has any doubts about the Assessor labs, this alone reason enough to do it.
- I’m getting fast at most things, but searching the doc cd is still a big weakness for me. That thing has become an absolute nightmare since the changes, and i really need to spend more time and making a note of where stuff has moved to etc.
- I started to panic when a router-id problem surfaced. I ended up reloading the router which fixed the problem, but I panicked. I’m thinking about it now, and it seems silly. I suddenly thought, oh crap I’m going to fail and I started to crumble a little. This psychological aspect of the exam is something I need to overcome. There was nothing in this exam that was really challenging or I hadn’t seen before (except that access-list type..which I’m going to have to research). I knew most of the configurations rote. Everything is made up of small simple tasks. I have to remember that in my throws of panic and not loose hope.
Still waiting on my mock lab 6 results (the website says 2 hours remaining). Hopefully I do better on that one. My next Assessor is on Friday. I’m going to redo the lab in dynamips this afternoon in the mean time. I’m beat, time to grab some lunch and take a break for a bit before I start up again this afternoon. Ahhh…the life of a CCIE candidate.
Only 3 weeks left today for my lab.
Related posts
Congratulations Arden. I can only read about half of your posts anymore because I don’t want to see any spoilers for the mock labs you are taking. I think that a 72% is a pretty solid score for the Assessor.
I think you make a good point about getting used to the IE topology. I think that is going to be a huge hurdle for me. It sounds like you handled it well.
The DOCCD is a pain in my butt, but I’m still hoping that it will be ‘fixed’ before I take my lab. I really feel for you and Ethan because your labs are coming up pretty quickly and the DOCCD is still mess.
Anyhoo…it sounds like your doing great. Keep it up over the home stretch.
Thanks cciepursuit! I’ll make sure I preface all my spoiler posts with a warning!
“Lost 2 points, for not using a next-hop self even though it wasn’t technically required”
Wouldn’t you be getting any explanation for it!!!
If you are getting worried about the DOCCD, I don’t think you should.
WHY???
GROUPSTUDY mail:
from:Joseph lab-location:Sydney date:second week of April
“While in the real Lab this morning, I brought this issue with the proctor.
He said he can get me access to any missing/broken links. So I don’t think
this would be a real problem in the Lab. Fortunately I didn’t have to refer
the Doc CD much and didn’t face any issue.”
Good Luck,
Thanks Dara, that puts my mind at ease a little with the DOCCD.
Re: “Wouldn’t you be getting any explanation for it!!!”
It was an adjacency between to EBGP neighbours, the next hop was changed automatically anyway, so the configuration wasn’t necessary. I verified this, but I should have just put the commands in. That’s what they ask for, that’s what they get. :)
Hi Arden!
Did you notice one importnant thing regarding redistribution from RIP into OSPF on R1 ?
Also, did you notice inconsistency on rate-limit feature?