CCIE Pursuit Blog

April 30, 2008

CCIE Routing and Switching Changes Coming In August???

Filed under: Cisco,Cisco Certification — cciepursuit @ 10:53 am
Tags: , , , ,

It’s been pretty up and down around here lately.  I totally failed my recent mock lab (downer).  Then I find out that Ethan and Victor are newly minted CCIEs (upper).  And now I hear this:

Thanks for the offer but we’ve already mapped out the v5 CoD to sync with the changes to be announced in August by Cisco for the R&S lab.

Brian Dennis, CCIE4 #2210 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/SP)

Internetwork Expert, Inc.

I was planning on writing a post on the subject of the thread that this nugget is pulled from (I still will once I catch up on about 99 other things), but this really socked me in the gut.  I’ve not been reading GroupStudy for the last couple of weeks (I know how I’ll be spending my lunch break), so there’s probably more information there.  I have no idea what the changes are/will be but at least it has been stated over and over again that changes are not implemented until 6 months after their announcement.  So get that lab scheduled before February of 2009.  🙂

***Update 01 May***

It looks like the thread has been pulled from the forum.  Here’s the short version for those of you who just want the quick and dirty:

Someone posted a response as Brian Dennis to a thread about fact-checking the IE ATCOD course.  Assuming that this actually was Brian (this being the InterTubes it could have been anyone), he mentioned a new version of IEATC being developed to meet some Routing and Switching CCIE changes to be announced in August.  I quoted that in my original posting.

Here’s the longer version of the back-story:

Darby Weaver (4x lab attendee who seems to have purchased tens of thousands of dollars worth of training from most of the major CCIE vendors) posted about fact-checking the IE ATCOD course.  He believes that there are a number of important errors in that course and he had started a thread to document these errors.  Before the thread disappeared, he had only come up with a vague warning against hard-coding ‘everything’ in the lab.  He gave the examples of router-ids and speed/duplex and warned that that there are issues that you can break/induce by doing this.  As with most of his posts the word count was high, but the actionable content was low.  As well as I can recall (and I’ll be the first to admit my memory is not perfect) IE does not tell you to hard-code everything in the lab.  What they do say is that IF you are given an option of hard-coding a setting versus letting a dynamic protocol set it for you (trunk encapsulation for example) you are better served by going the 100% route by hard-coding the setting than going the 99.99% route of letting a dynamic protocol work its magic.

The troubling part of Darby’s posting was not that he was fact-checking the IE ATCOD (I believe that he stated that he owed IE a technical review(???) and that’s why Brian’s response begins with “Thanks for the offer”) but that he dropped a few bizarre allegations against (unspecified) CCIE vendors.  The two I remember are 1) A vendor asked him in an email to violate the NDA concerning the Cisco Assessor product, and 2) A vendor (or vendors) tried to get him to disclose other vendors’ training.  He’s made similar allegations about vendor ethics/training errors in the past.  You can check out this post (part way down the page you’ll hit a post that explains why he was kicked off of GroupStudy) in which he makes some vague comments about vendors other than Narbik teaching some (again unspecified) core topic(s?) incorrectly.  He openly threatened to post these errors, but when asked to specify the error(s) he never did.  The same pattern appeared to be taking place in the thread that disappeared.  It’s difficult to determine if he’s really trying to fact-check or just sully some vendors’ reputations.  Either way, the end result was pretty underwhelming considering the original threats.

Someone claiming to be Brian Dennis (Internetwork Expert founder/instructor) posted and said that IE was planning their newest version of the IE ATCOD around changes to the CCIE Routing and Switching track to be announced in August.  I have no way of verifying that this was Brian Dennis, so caveat lector.  Brian also advised Darby that he believed that he had “tool hunter” syndrome and should avoid trying to collect training from multiple vendors (a bit late for that) and instead concentrate on full-scale labs.  Darby’s response to this was something like “Point taken.  I didn’t know you were working on a new version of the COD”.  Today the thread is gone.

I’m a little disapointed because I am interested in any errors in the IE ATCOD course and was planning on following the thread.  I don’t know (nor do I want to speculate on) why the thread disappeared.  I was going to put all of this in a new post, but this seems to have run its course so I’ll just leave it as an ‘addendum’ to this post.


Ethan Banks and Victor Cappuccio are CCIEs!!!

Filed under: CCIE Blogs,Cisco,Cisco Certification — cciepursuit @ 6:48 am
Tags: , , ,

Great news!!!  Ethan Banks passed his CCIE Routing and Switching Lab yesterday in RTP on his first attempt!  What an accomplishment!  Surf on over and give him some love.

Hopefully we’re in the midst of a run on CCIE numbers for bloggers.  First Shiran Guez and now Ethan.  Hopefully we’ll see Arden Packeer joining this group and make it three in a row.

Will Ethan have to change his blog name from CCIE Candidate to simply CCIE now?  🙂

***Update 30 April***

When it rains it pours.  🙂  Another CCIE blogger has passed the lab. [HT to Marko and Arden]

Victor Cappuccio (A Networker Blog) got his digits yesterday as well.


Question Of The Day: 30 April, 2008

Topic: IOS

You need to add multiple lines of configuration to the following interfaces on sw1:

Fa0/1, Fa0/2, Fa0/3, Fa0/5, Fa0/7, Fa0/8, Fa0/10, Fa0/13, Fa0/14, Fa0/15, Fa0/16, Fa0/17

Can you write a single-line interface range command to apply the changes to all of these interfaces at one time?

Click Here For Answer

Yesterday’s Question

Question Of The Day: 29 April, 2008 

Topic: OSPF

You have the following configuration on r1.

interface Loopback0
 ip address
router ospf 100
 network area 0
 network area 0

r2 is seeng the loopback address with a /32 mask:

r2#sh ip route ospf subnetted, 1 subnets
O [110/2] via, 00:00:13, FastEthernet0/0

Using only a single command, make it so that r2 sees r1’s Loopback 0 with its configured network mask.

Answer: ip ospf network point-to-point

OSPF treats Loopback interfaces as stub networks and will advertise these networks as host routes (/32) regardless of the ‘native’ network mask. 

r1#show ip ospf interface loopback 0
Loopback0 is up, line protocol is up
  Internet Address, Area 0 
  Process ID 100, Router ID, Network Type LOOPBACK, Cost: 1
 Loopback interface is treated as a stub Host

To avoid this behavior you need to change the OSPF network type of the Loopback interface to point-to-point.  Why point-to-point?  Because it’s the only OSPF network type that IOS will accept for a Loopback interface:

r1(config-if)#ip ospf network non-broadcast
OSPF: Invalid type for interface

r1(config-if)#ip ospf network broadcast
OSPF: Invalid type for interface

r1(config-if)#ip ospf network point-to-multipoint
OSPF: Invalid type for interface

r1(config-if)#ip ospf network point-to-multipoint non-broadcast
OSPF: Invalid type for interface

After you change the Loopback interface to an OSPF point-to-point network, you will see the route on r2 as a /8.

r1(config)#interface loopback 0          
r1(config-if)#ip ospf network point-to-point

r1(config-if)#do sh ip os int lo0
Loopback0 is up, line protocol is up
  Internet Address, Area 0
  Process ID 100, Router ID, Network Type POINT_TO_POINT, Cost: 1
  Transmit Delay is 1 sec, State POINT_TO_POINT,
  Timer intervals configured, Hello 10, Dead 40, Wait 40, Retransmit 5
    oob-resync timeout 40
  Supports Link-local Signaling (LLS)
  Index 2/2, flood queue length 0
  Next 0x0(0)/0x0(0)
  Last flood scan length is 0, maximum is 0
  Last flood scan time is 0 msec, maximum is 0 msec
  Neighbor Count is 0, Adjacent neighbor count is 0
  Suppress hello for 0 neighbor(s)

r2#sh ip route ospf
O [110/2] via, 00:02:08, FastEthernet0/0

Blog at