On 07/16/2014 02:36 AM, G. Matthew Rice wrote: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Bryan J Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> So _everyone_ needs to know Class A, B and C if they are going to remotely >> do any DNS administration. So it's best to introduce them with their CIDR >> for IPv4. > DNS servers/reverse records are part of LPIC-2, though.
One could also see those reverse DNS aspects as some address boundaries / lengths aligning better with the notation of IP addresses in the reverse DNS than others. This is just like /64, /60, /56... for IPv6 and based on how reverse DNS names are written (which in return may have been influenced by other ways of looking at subnets years ago, but that is another story). > LPIC-1 is about being a consumer of DNS services. > > So, final vote guys: > > - explicitly mention CIDR notation? (I've always considered it a given) > - explicitly mention VLSM? (also always considered it a given) > - include Class A, B, C networks? (we used to have it but dropped it; > I always considered it a little bit of an archaic way of referring to > subnets; plus internal networks don't care and most people have their > public IPs assigned/subnetted for them) I vote for including CIDR in the list of terms to be explicit on what we expect -- CIDR and CIDR only. No explicit prefix lengths, no VLSM, and i.e. no network classes! There are way too many people out there still thinking in network classes and more or less ignoring classless routing. For the aspects included in LPIC-1 we should get over classful routing and keep some "special names" for /24 etc. as part of the history lessen. Fabian _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
