Here's the short answer for a bandwidth domain: It's a collision domain for a non CSMACD network. It kinda makes sense, you can't very well have a tokenring collision domain can you?
hth, Hal > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 9:35 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: written [7:45056] > > > I agree with your statement about poorly worded questions. > However, this > is just an excuse for a poorly written test! > > Oh just for the record, ever hear of a bandwidth domain? If you have > please let me know about it because I can't find it anywhere. > > I didn't say that only CCSE<>knowledge of security! (Man if > you had any > clue you would have said > CSS1<> knowledge of security and I didn't say that either! > But why not > say CCNP/IP<> knowledge of Routing just to be consistant!) > What I implied > was that those 3 tests in combination would give at least a > suggestion > that I do know security enough to not get a 0% on an easier test > especially with the same vendor! Additionally, what I said > before is that > the CCSE was a test where I had to memorize answers in order > to pass the > test pure and simple vs Most of Cisco's tests where what I > read in a book > is used the same day on the job. If you know the theory then > you know it. > It will be the same in RSA or a RFC or sometimes even > Microsoft or other > publications. > > Oh can I make this clearer? If I read Doyle, Halabi, > Pricilla, Howard or > Moy, I can not only apply their knowledge to any vendor > network, but I can > pass Cisco tests based on their books and become more educated in the > process. (I am still making money just from Top-Down) If I > don't know what > these 5 authors are talking about then I need to > reread them for I will fail to know networking in more than one > environment. I really didn't have this experience with > Checkpoint although > RFC 2401-2410 did help a bit. With Checkpoint I was pretty > much on my own > and no matter how many times I did the labs and implemented > solutions for > customers, I still didn't help me on the test. 4 routers, Halabi and > Caslow, and a day in an ISP was all I needed to increase from > a 10% to a > 100% on the BGP section of the BSCN (of yeah about 10 lattes > at least). > That is how tests should be. > > Reread what I said about the CCSE again... The implication is more > towards the CSS1 and CCIE Sec wri. I just aced the first RSA > test and > Microsoft design Sec test and what helped me out for them? > Grad School, > CSS1, CCSE, CISSP, work, RFC 2401-2410, RSA Press, white > papers,Maeda. If > Cisco can help me get a better score on a non-Cisco test then > it should > help me get a better score on a Cisco test! Got the point? > > Perhaps what you said about my history situation is correct. If my > customer have pre 12.0 I just tell them to upgrade or I will > not work for > them. So far it has worked every time. The same goes for > PIXs. If they > are using 5.2 or the 520 I tell them to get 6.1 and upgrade > to the 525 and > po's are signed. Just force the issue with them or walk > away. It works > well for me :-) It makes your company more money too. > > I know Foundry is not the only solution. We have here, > Extreme, Juniper, > NEC, Hitachi, Packeteer, BigIP, among other vendors. I used Foundry > because of the straight forwardness of the vendor, quality, > and price but > I evaluated the other vendors as well. > > Theo > > > > > > > > "Kevin Cullimore" > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 05/27/2002 08:44 AM > Please respond to "Kevin Cullimore" > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > cc: > Subject: Re: written [7:45056] > > > Dealing with poorly worded questions can sometimes serve as > good practice > for interpreting the inherent incoherence & unrealism > characterizing many > customer demands and concerns in real time. > > The relevance of the history questions underscores the > distinctiveness of > your situation. You are indeed fortunate to not have to contend with > legacy > code, but many of us lack the financial independence to > adhere to your > high > standards, so we're faced with situations where we need to > make sure that > the intermediate systems on the far end running code from > 1999 can support > the relatively new functionality we were hoping to implement > on devices > found at the near end. > > Two side notes: Foundry is not the only alternative, and I can verify > firsthand that CCSE<>knowledge of security (although I admit > that those > exams contained more questions concerning rfc-based security > standards > than > any other exams I've taken). > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: 26 May 2002 4:44 am > Subject: Re: written [7:45056] > > > > Yeah but I can sympathize with you man because several > times on the test > I > > think that Cisco is wrong. Usually, Cisco is right on and > I have to > agree > > because the right answer is just here. However, sometimes > I don't think > > the answer is there at all or I think the question is > phrased in a way > to > > make me fail. I don't like those questions. > > > > So far, BSCN, BCSI, IDS, VPN, PIX, MCNS and QoS had > questions that I > could > > not disagree with and though yeah, the correct answer is > right here. The > > questions properly tested my knowledge and if I was wrong, > I agreed I > was > > wrong. These are good tests. Especially the CLI questions, very > > respectable. > > > > However, for CCNA, CCDA, CID, CIT, and CCIE R&S/SEC > written, some of the > > questions I thought were more designed to make me fail > rather than test > my > > real knowledge on the topic. It was like, I would take sometimes 3 > > minutes just to try to figure out what the hell Cisco was > asking. I > never > > had that problem with the other tests. I don't like it either when > Cisco > > plays English language word games on the test. Some of my > friends are > not > > native English speakers can they can't understand the questions. In > > particular, I don't like the IOS history questions. They > really get me > > vexed. Can you imagine this. > > > > Router> > > Router>en > > Password: ******** > > Question: What IOS version introduced NAT? > > Question: 11.0 (Engineer shouts explictives!) > > Question: wrong > > Question: 10.2 > > Question: wrong > > Question: 11.1 > > Question: wrong > > > > If my router asked me this I would throw it out the window > and go buy a > > Foundry machine asap! I don't understand why I need to > know the history > > of a command. So far, only Cisco is asking me these silly > questions. > > Understanding a topic is quite different from understanding > the history. > > Historical questions are just silly I think! I just > can't understand > > how I would be a better engineer if I knew the history of commands > > expecially given that I now only use 12.0 and above. If > someone wanted > me > > to do below 12.0 I would tell them to find a starving CCIE > from Cali! > > > > And get this! I am a CISSP and a CSS1 and CCSE. You would > think that I > > know security right? I got a 0% on the CID security > section twice! I > > still don't know why. How could I not know enough when I > got over 900 > on > > each of the CSS1 tests all on the first try??????? I just don't > > understand sometimes..... > > > > Theodore Stout, CISSP > > Senior Security Consultant > > CCSE, CSS1, CCNP, CCDP, MCSE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Erwin" > > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 05/26/2002 01:57 PM > > Please respond to "Erwin" > > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > cc: > > Subject: Re: written [7:45056] > > > > > > How would you know that the particular question does not > have a correct > > answer, based on the score you get--69%-- It does not sound > convincing > to > > me. > > Even you get that question rewarded to you, it does not > mean you will > get > > 70% since I believe it is calculated using a statistical analysis > > technique. > > Even if you can get 70%, it does not mean that you master the topic > well. > > The most important thing is that you understand and master > the topics, > not > > just "pass pass pass". Try to get distinction or high distinction > > (unfortunately, the exam grade is only pass and fail). > > > > Good luck for your next exam. > > > > ""CJ"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > Having obtained 69% and failing the CCIE qualification, > There was one > > > question > > > which did not have a correct answer. Whom do I contact at Cisco > address > > this > > > issue. [EMAIL PROTECTED] did not yet replay since the last 4 days. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=45254&t=45254 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
