On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Alessandro Selli < [email protected]> wrote:
> Bryan J Smith wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Alessandro Selli < > [email protected]> wrote: > > It's foundational to what end? System administration? Network > administration? Security? LPIC-1 is not foundational to everything > Linux. It's foundational to an end user perspective and to basic > Linux-box setup and troubleshooting. IMHO these users need not know > about RFCs > > > Then why is IETF RFC 1918 part of Object 109.1 in Exam 102? > > Is it? > http://www.lpi.org/linux-certifications/programs/lpic-1/exam-102/ > > 109.1 Fundamentals of internet protocols > > - *Weight: * 4 > - *Description:* Candidates should demonstrate a proper understanding > of TCP/IP network fundamentals. > > Key Knowledge Areas > > - Demonstrate an understanding network masks. > - > Knowledge of the differences between private and public "dotted quad" > IP-Addresses. > - Setting a default route. > - Knowledge about common TCP and UDP ports (20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 53, > 80, 110, 119, 139, 143, 161, 443, 465, 993, 995). > - Knowledge about the differences and major features of UDP, TCP and > ICMP. > - Knowledge of the major differences between IPv4 and IPV6. > > Terms and Utilities > > - /etc/services > - ftp > - telnet > - host > - ping > - dig > - traceroute > - tracepath > > ------------------------------ > > Does not look like one is ever going to be asked: "What RFC covers > Address Allocation for Private Internets"? > > A) 822 > B) 1879 > C) 1918 > D) 1945 > E) 1771 > This has honestly got to be the most argumentative response I've seen in a long time. I know a lot of people get into nick-nack responses on here, and fail to see the actual point I make at times, but this probably is king. HINT: It's the second bullet ... QUOTE: _'Knowledge of the differences between private and public "dotted quad" IP-Addresses.'_ -- LPI Exam 102 Objective 109.1 (LPIC-1 concept) Again ... because I must seem to be some sort of 'Village Idiot' in some minds, I'll try this again ... I have repeatedly stated that -- in my view -- juinor administrators must recognize and identify some _fundamental_ basics from the output of "ip addr". Knowing what is a private network prefix and CIDR is pretty important _fundamental_ for a junior sysadmin. I cannot believe you just made the argument you did about IETF RFC1918 just to "be correct." It's petty and serves absolutely no purpose. We do *not* mandate avoidance of CIDR /8, /16 and /24 IPv4 usage, we just > agreeded to leave out of the exam any question directly targeting network > classes. > We need to be teaching junior admins the importance of what the /8, /16 and /24 subnets represent, including the assignment of those networks by their classes ... A being through 127, B being through 191 and C being through 223, plus their private reservations (per IETF RFC1918). I honestly don't understand how we teach the IETF RFC1918 private reservations without any mention of why they are in their respective blocks. It's about network prefixes. I'd do the same if I was teaching IPv6, junior admins need to know what fc80::/64 means, along with the fd00::/8 assignment (including 40-bit Global ID for /48 and typical /64 network). You cannot teach it without the similar network prefixes. > I _only_ mentioned that the Classful subnets are required for many > applications and services, only one being in-addr.arpa zones. There are > many more examples. > > IN-ADDR.ARPA zones deal with DNS administration (i.e. Exam 202, topic: 207.2 > Create and maintain DNS zones (weight: 3)). Not with "Configure client > side DNS" (Exam 102, topic 109.4). What do you need IN-ADDR.ARPA zones for > when you have to configure /etc/hostname, /etc/hosts, /etc/resolv.conf or > /etc/nsswitch.conf? For network interface settings, knowledge of CIDR is > enough. Then, again, everyone is free to teach more than is required. > Once again, you _refuse_ to _respect_ the _context_ of my viewpoint. I said there are _many_ applications and services that require an administrator to have a foundation in what a Class network is. I.e., forget me for giving an example at a higher level and why a lower level should introduce the concept. E.g., why would we have _every_ higher level topic _re-teach_ the same, Classful concepts when they are a _shared_ fundamental concept that could be taught only once? > And that includes why there are 3 different sets of private > reservations in IETF RFC1918 for IPv4, which _is_ in LPIC-1. ;) > > IPv4 is, RFC-1918 is not. > Again, I've never seen a more argumentative statement here in a long time. This is a prime example of not stopping to understand someone's viewpoint, and to just spew whatever to disregard their point. E.g., counter-argumentative response-question ... We only teach IPv4, not IPv4 Private Reservations (IETF RFC1918)? > > Any junior sysadmin should know what they are looking at when they run > "ip addr" on a system. That's my strongest, educated opinion having dealt > with junior sysadmins. > > > Output of ip addr is perfectly understandable with knowledge of CIDR > alone, no RFC or IN-ADDR.ARPA zones are needed. > I _never_ said in-addr.arpa should be on LPIC-1. However, your statement on "RFC[1918]" is in directly conflict with the 2nd bullet of LPI Exam 102 Objective 109.1. You are being very argumentative. I.e, IETF RFC1918 *IS* IPv4 Private Reservations. > I've always looked at LPIC-1 as the foundation of what a junior > sysadmin needs to understand to function in an Enterprise environment. > > > Is LPIC-1 really targeted at the Enterprise environment? Many, most > things in LPIC-1 are indeed central to use of Linux in an Enterprise > environment, but being something used in such an environment is not, that I > know, the rationale for it's inclusion in LPIC-1 objectives. Otherwise, > there'd be tons of things missing. > Again, argumentative. Hit the archives the last time someone started that non-sense. You'll note someone quickly has to point out their folly. Please stop being argumentative and take the time to disagree with my viewpoint, not something that is pure semantics. > Please explain how CIDR is enough to understand IETF RFC1918. > > > RFC-1918, *any* RFC actually, is *not* mentioned in any LPIC-1 objective. > Again, more argumentative non-sense. And there's a TCP/IP port reservation for Gopher for a reason. Should > the Gopher protocol be included in the objectives, next to the HTTP and FTP > protocols? > The IETF RFC1436 standard does _not_ back any current LPI Exam 101 or 102 objective. But the IETF RFC1918 standard very much _does_ back ... QUOTE: _'Knowledge of the differences between private and public "dotted quad" IP-Addresses.'_ -- LPI Exam 102 Objective 109.1 (LPIC-1 concept) So, again, stop being argumentative. -- bjs
_______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
