Yeah i suppose it was just a mistake in consistency, no hidden agenda behind it from the video. But you try to pay attention to detail when you watch the instructors at work :-)
The other option might also very much be true, i did not lab it up yet. Thanks all. On Jun 15, 2011, at 5:22 PM, Anthony Sequeira wrote: > I do not have the task in front of me, but could it be that there was no need > for granularity? It is just a quicker way of saying all IPV6. > > Also, another guess is the fact that there might not have been IPv6 ACLs > available in the IOS code at the time! > > :) > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alef > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 7:38 AM > To: [email protected] IE > Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] vol1 task 21.5 no acl needed for ipv6 in priority > queue? > > I noticed that with the priority queues, that ipv6 is not bound to a acl of > permit any any? i.e. for all other traffic, the command is set as : > priority-list 1 protocol ip low list 102 > > but ipv6 is done as: > priority-list 1 protocol ipv6 normal > > with no acl? > > any clues ? > _______________________________________________ > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > visit www.ipexpert.com > > Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out > www.PlatinumPlacement.com _______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out www.PlatinumPlacement.com
