Bad Grading

Hi INE especially the proctors

I am literally dissapointed by the grading that has been done and seriously thinking not to give anymore although i have one more scheduled this week before sitting in my actual lab next week on monday (20/07)

SG says 64000 clock rate in task 3.3 which i configured as well, however the proctor says "configured clock rate is not compatible with task 5.2". Means here proctor is contradicting with SG solution.

In task 4.4 of RIP, i have checked this 100 times "network 0.0.0.0" one line command, and proctor has said "i have not put that in". ????? I m 100% sure i had put that in, the only command on Router R5.

In task 4.7, there is no mentioning of summarizing 176.x.0.0/16, it is worded poorly if it is..how could i miss this one if it would not have been worded poorly

Task 5.2 was given 0 marks, again of contradictory grading of task 3.3. :(

Task 5.3, proctor says "class class-default is useless on Cat 3550", which is again contradicting with SG solution itself. I used class-default and SG used as well. :(

Task 7.1, lock and key, i can't believe when proctor said "other traffic to the webserver should have been denied". My solution exactly matches the SG solution and i tested it, verfified it, how come proctor can do that to me??? 

I am literally pissed off after looking at the level of grading that has been done.

I would ask the management of INE to please look into this one, i have no other means but to email here to let you know about it.

I hope the real lab would not do this to me.

I am not concerned about the marks i obtain, however atleast the grading should have been done properly so that i could improve myself on those areas however I have been literally demoralized after looking at the standard of grading, now i have no idea which area to improve, :(

Regards

Mock 6 Lab Given on: 08:00 AM 09/07 AEST

Comments

  • <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">





    Email [email protected] with your questions, they will provide more
    information why your tasks were graded as they were.



    HTH,



    Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593 (R&S/SP/Security)

    [email protected]

     

    Internetwork Expert, Inc.

    http://www.INE.com

    Toll Free: 877-224-8987 x 705

    Outside US: 775-826-4344 x 705

    Online Community: http://www.IEOC.com

    CCIE Blog: http://blog.INE.com





    ie_ccie_2009 wrote:

    Hi INE especially the proctors

    I am literally dissapointed by the grading that has been done and
    seriously thinking not to give anymore although i have one more
    scheduled coming back before sitting in my actual lab next week on
    monday (20/07)

    SG says 64000 clock rate in task 3.3 which i configured as well,
    however the proctor says "configured clock rate is not compatible with
    task 5.2". Means here proctor is contradicting with SG solution.

    In task 4.4 of RIP, i have checked this 100 times "network
    0.0.0.0" one line command, and proctor has said "i have not put that
    in". ????? I m 100% sure i had put that in, the only command on Router
    R5.

    In task 4.7, there is no mentioning of summarizing 176.x.0.0/16,
    it is worded poorly if it is..how could i miss this one if it would not
    have been worded poorly

    Task 5.2 was given 0 marks, again of contradictory grading of task
    3.3. :(

    Task 5.3, proctor says "class class-default is useless on Cat
    3550", which is again contradicting with SG solution itself. I used
    class-default and SG used as well. :(

    Task 7.1, lock and key, i can't believe when proctor said "other
    traffic to the webserver should have been denied". My solution exactly
    matches the SG solution and i tested it, verfified it, how come proctor
    can do that to me??? 

    I am literally pissed off after looking at the level of grading
    that has been done.

    I would ask the management of INE to please look into this one, i
    have no other means but to email here to let you know about it.

    I hope the real lab would not do this to me.

    I am not concerned about the marks i obtain, however atleast the
    grading should have been done properly so that i could improve myself
    on those areas however I have been literally demoralized after looking
    at the standard of grading, now i have no idea which area to improve, :(

    Regards

    Mock 6 Lab Given on: 08:00 AM 09/07 AEST





    --

    View this message online at: http://ieoc.com/forums/p/7120/25354.aspx#25354







  • Hi Brian

    I am much pleased to get a reply from you. My pleasure. I am going to email them now.

    I have some questions regarding labs as a whole as i am sitting next week on 20/07.

    Regarding reachability in the lab, when we can decide if we need full reachability to the BGP prefixed advertized by the backbone routers? Sometimes we are not aggregating or providing the backbones with our internal address space. Could you please shed some light on it as i dont' want to miss my pioints just becoz of this.

    Awaiting your reply

  • <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">





    The answer is... it depends.  In the actual exam there will be
    instructions that clearly indicate what the goals of the scenario are. 
    In some cases full reachability is required, in some cases not.  As
    long as you know what is required in order to accomplish the goal
    presented, that is the key.  Regarding your previous questions, I've
    confirmed that the grading proctor has received your questions and
    you'll get a unicast reply offline.



    Good luck in your continued preparation!





    Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593 (R&S/SP/Security)

    [email protected]

     

    Internetwork Expert, Inc.

    http://www.INE.com

    Toll Free: 877-224-8987 x 705

    Outside US: 775-826-4344 x 705

    Online Community: http://www.IEOC.com

    CCIE Blog: http://blog.INE.com



    ie_ccie_2009 wrote:

    Hi Brian

    I am much pleased to get a reply from you. My pleasure. I am going
    to email them now.

    I have some questions regarding labs as a whole as i am sitting
    next week on 20/07.

    Regarding reachability in the lab, when we can decide if we need
    full reachability to the BGP prefixed advertized by the backbone
    routers? Sometimes we are not aggregating or providing the backbones
    with our internal address space. Could you please shed some light on it
    as i dont' want to miss my pioints just becoz of this.

    Awaiting your reply





    --

    View this message online at: http://ieoc.com/forums/p/7120/25358.aspx#25358







  • Hi Brian

    I was informed that i would get a response from proctors offline however have not been given yet, still waiting on that and to clarify on those points that i had raised. I've my real lab just after 3-days on 20/07.

     

    Regards

  • <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">





    We've been digging around trying to figure out what message was sent
    specifically to the proctors and didn't see any.  Can you unicast me
    (so I have your actual e-mail address) and I'll get you in touch with
    the one who graded your lab and we'll go from there!



    Thanks!






     



    Scott Morris, CCIEx4
    (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713,

    JNCIE-M #153, JNCIS-ER, CISSP, et al.

    JNCI-M, JNCI-ER

    [email protected]



    Internetwork Expert, Inc.

    http://www.InternetworkExpert.com

    Toll Free: 877-224-8987

    Outside US: 775-826-4344



    Knowledge is power.

    Power corrupts.

    Study hard and be Eeeeviiiil......






    ie_ccie_2009 wrote:

    Hi INE especially the proctors

    I am literally dissapointed by the grading that has been done and
    seriously thinking not to give anymore although i have one more
    scheduled coming back before sitting in my actual lab next week on
    monday (20/07)

    SG says 64000 clock rate in task 3.3 which i configured as well,
    however the proctor says "configured clock rate is not compatible with
    task 5.2". Means here proctor is contradicting with SG solution.

    In task 4.4 of RIP, i have checked this 100 times "network
    0.0.0.0" one line command, and proctor has said "i have not put that
    in". ????? I m 100% sure i had put that in, the only command on Router
    R5.

    In task 4.7, there is no mentioning of summarizing 176.x.0.0/16,
    it is worded poorly if it is..how could i miss this one if it would not
    have been worded poorly

    Task 5.2 was given 0 marks, again of contradictory grading of task
    3.3. :(

    Task 5.3, proctor says "class class-default is useless on Cat
    3550", which is again contradicting with SG solution itself. I used
    class-default and SG used as well. :(

    Task 7.1, lock and key, i can't believe when proctor said "other
    traffic to the webserver should have been denied". My solution exactly
    matches the SG solution and i tested it, verfified it, how come proctor
    can do that to me??? 

    I am literally pissed off after looking at the level of grading
    that has been done.

    I would ask the management of INE to please look into this one, i
    have no other means but to email here to let you know about it.

    I hope the real lab would not do this to me.

    I am not concerned about the marks i obtain, however atleast the
    grading should have been done properly so that i could improve myself
    on those areas however I have been literally demoralized after looking
    at the standard of grading, now i have no idea which area to improve, :(

    Regards

    Mock 6 Lab Given on: 08:00 AM 09/07 AEST







    Internetwork Expert - The Industry Leader in CCIE Preparation

    http://www.internetworkexpert.com



    Subscription information may be found at:

    http://www.ieoc.com/forums/ForumSubscriptions.aspx

  • Hi Muhammad,

    I haven't received your questions to the proctor's mailbox - [email protected]. It must have been blocked by the SPAM filters.

    However, your e-mail regarding ML2 went through just fine.

    I answered both these e-mails unicast with explanations why you didn't receive points for those tasks.

    I hope it will help you in your preparation.

    Good luck next Monday!

  • Hi Vadim
    Yeah no worries and thanks for your wishes

     


  • You can say that again!!!

  • Kami,

    E-mail all your mock lab related questions to [email protected] and I'll answer them

     

  • Well

     

    This post actually resumes my same feelings about this ML, i have paid 3 of 7 and this was my last one before my 1st attempt.... I also have the same concerns about grading.

     

    Maybe this helps me to ask for the proctor during my attempt because my faults, or just misleading wording (PBR for example), or directly things like the class default or lnger matching in R6...

     

    I will collect my evidence (CRT loggs all my job always :) ) to probe with evidence. I have also simulate in GNS3 the topology (of course not L2).

     

    Regards,

    Gonzalo

  • Hi Gonzalo,

    You may ask your questions about grading here or e-mail them to [email protected].

    Thank you!

     

    Vadim

     

  • Gonzalo,

    I sent explanations to all your questions to your e-mail.

    Good luck with your lab preparation!

     

    Vadim

     





  • Thank you very much it was very helpfull and illustrative. I'll be more careful in my lab attempt



    Best regards



    Gonzalo Díaz M.



    Sent from my Android phone



    -----Original Message-----

    From: Vadim Mineev [[email protected]]

    Received: jueves, 26 sep. 2013, 14:56

    To: Gonzalo Diaz (AM) [[email protected]]

    Subject: Re: [rs-ml-6] Bad Grading







    Gonzalo,

    I sent explanations to all your questions to your e-mail.

    Good luck with your lab preparation!

     

    Vadim

     








    Internetwork Expert - The Industry Leader in CCIE Preparation

    http://www.internetworkexpert.com



    Subscription information may be found at:

    http://www.ieoc.com/forums/ForumSubscriptions.aspx





    itevomcid






  • Thank you very much it was very helpfull and illustrative. I'll be more careful in my lab attempt



    Best regards



    Gonzalo Díaz M.



    Sent from my Android phone



    -----Original Message-----

    From: Vadim Mineev [[email protected]]

    Received: jueves, 26 sep. 2013, 14:56

    To: Gonzalo Diaz (AM) [[email protected]]

    Subject: Re: [rs-ml-6] Bad Grading







    Gonzalo,

    I sent explanations to all your questions to your e-mail.

    Good luck with your lab preparation!

     

    Vadim

     








    Internetwork Expert - The Industry Leader in CCIE Preparation

    http://www.internetworkexpert.com



    Subscription information may be found at:

    http://www.ieoc.com/forums/ForumSubscriptions.aspx





    itevomcid


Sign In or Register to comment.