Re: What are fair assumptions about practice labs? posted 10/23/2006
I don't know which practice lab you are using and I am not going to tell
mine (since I am overall happy about it). But they sometimes can be really
Regarding loopbacks, I am told this might also happen in the real exam and
if in doubt best way is to ask proctors about how they prefer. This is
definitely a legitimate question to ask i suppose.
Second, after some difficulty level, practice labs start to suggest some
weird solutions. (Please note I didn't take the exam yet, so no clue about
real life). However during my studies I come across really weird solutions
which are far from best practices. I think those are to prepare you for the
worst case and to give you the ability to look problems from a different
Bottomline is, don't be frustrated, just keep studying.
On 10/23/06, Ryan <ryan95842@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I just finished a very frustrating lab. It's not that it was terribly
> difficult, it was, but that it's not entirely clear what to do. I'm
> specifically of the advertisement of loopback address's. In the beginning
> the lab, it says all networks must be reachable etc. Half way through,
> are VERY specific directions on how to put several loopbacks into the
> routing table, but only about half of them though and no mention of the
> others. Based on this "trend" and the lack of specific details, I followed
> the directions as carefully as I could and didn't do anything I was not
> asked to do. I get to the end and discover I was somehow supposed to
> advertise the remaining loopbacks into the various protocols. No clue is
> given that I was to do this, and into which protocol (between 2 -4
> on which router).
> So my question is, at what point is is safe to make assumptions and just
> start adding things in? How am I supposed to cope with missing information
> in the practice labs?
> Is the real lab this vague and ambiguous?
> And at what point does "best practice" and "proper use" of a protocol go
> the window? On the same lab, there was an objective to configure NAT, but
> was not NAT like one would typically deploy with the conventional
> understanding of NAT, instead it very specific aspect of NAT, but no
> of that. The solution had all sorts of things with nothing to do with
> Subscription information may be found at: