Day 3 – I started with my my customer testimonial for INE.
Scenario 3 – Another provider scenario. OSPF/BGP design and route manipulation.
We cut off short so that the candidates who were taking the test tomorrow can rest up.
All in all I have some studying to do but I feel that I am well over half way there.
Day 2 summary:
The discussion today was very service provider BGP/ISIS/MPLS focused. It seems that the baseline knowledge necessary is more SP than R&S but having both would be best. This worries me a little bit because in my enterprise experience I work much more with R&S, Data Center & Security. I am going to have to study a lot of service provider scenarios… as you can see below.
We started the day with some really fun SDN and data center discussions. A lot of discussion around overlays: STT, VXLAN & NVGRE as well as fabrics (IE FabricPath). I pushed my thoughts around hybrid SDN models as the best answer which was met with surprisingly little resistance.
INE Scenario 2: ATM service provider moving to a packet switched model.
- Deciding between L2/L3 overlay and VPN technologies
- MPLS L3 vs L2 VPNs, VPLS, GRE, IPSec VPN, VPLS, ATOM (AnyThing Over MPLS)
- BGP RFC 4761 (Kompella) 4762 (Martini) – VPLS L2 transport using Ethernet
- BGP RFC 6624 – VPLS using any L2 protocol
- IPLS RFC draft – L2VPN working group
- ATM to MPLS migration design specifics
- MPLS FRR mechanisms
- MPLS one-hop RSVP-TE tunnels to protect LSP w/ FRR
- Hierarchical MPLS LSPs w/ RFC 3107, MPLSE TE forwarding adjacencies, Inter-are MPLS TE over IP tunnels, Hierarchical LDP
- Seamless MPLS draft
- DiffServ to MPLS TE mapping
- BGP Path Hunting
- BGP Soo
- MPLS VPN CsC (Carrier Supporting Carrier)
- Optimum Route Reflection
- Backscatter traffic collection
- MPLS 6PE
INE CCDE study session Feb 16-18, Chicago, IL
Day 1 summary:
Today was very helpful in understanding the format of the test. First there are four main scenarios in total with a time requirement of 4 hours to complete first two scenarios then another four for the final two. The four “platforms” basically equate each to an autonomous systems whether it be enterprise or service provider.
Each scenario contains roughly 25 questions each and once you answer a question you cannot go back. So, you can only read the first question before scenario. Basically, the way it works is you are presented with the base scenario information + question #1 at first. Once you have read and analyzed the information and answered question one the test will unlock question #2 and potentially release some additional information.
The additional information both in the form of revelations as to the proper previous question selection in the verbiage of the next question as well as additional fictitious email correspondence with clients or engineers. Along the way you are asked to decide what is the most relevant information to ask different parties. Once answered this leads to an additional ’email’ being available to review. The emails seem to be template and no matter how you answer the question you may get the exact same ’email’ response as another candidate selecting a different set of questions to ask.
It works much like a decision tree. If you answer question #1 correctly, this will become apparent as you go through the questions and you will continue down the correct tree. If you answer #1 incorrectly it may take you a few additional questions to realize that you made the wrong choice and went down the wrong tree but don’t fear the test will correct you back on the right path and give you a chance to recover. As the questions progress they seem to become more narrow in scope and easier to nail down the correct answer.
My day 1 Notes –
Rack Space Principal Architect
Wells Fargo Architect
Petr developed the material when he worked at INE.
Scenario 1: (Cisco official practice lab scenario) Service provider based question – Theme park providing connectivity to vendors
- Biggest issues seems to be interpretation of intent of statements. In other words, reading between the lines, between the lines.
Scenario 2: (Created by Petr / INE) Domestic service provider – ATM migration
- A lot of BGP design discussions. Full-mesh vs route-reflectors vs confederations vs hybrid.
- It’s always a balance between trade offs: resiliency in adding links vs scale-ability.
- IS-IS …. need to study.
- Heavy BGP path selection considerations impacting design.
- Need to study BGP Add-Path and BGP Best External.
CCDE practical exam simulation