On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Fabian Thorns <[email protected]> wrote:
> To sum up, I think we all agree that CIDR is the one any only way > looking at both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses there days. Therefore to be > explicit we may consider adding CIDR to the objectives. We could also > think about adding "Common prefix and subnet lengths for IPv4 (i.e. /8, > /16, /24) and IPv6 (i.e. /48, /56, /64)." > > As Bryan points out, teaching the candidates about those special prefix > lengths build the foundation on which candidates later may built on when > learning e.g. LPIC-2 content. LPIC-1 is where we teach candidates > networking and basic subnetting and I'd do it that far that is enough > for what follows later on (when subnetting is considered a > pre-requirement). > > From my point of view the only remaining question is whether we consider > this that naturally that we don't want to mention it explicitly or if > there are misunderstandings that could be avoided by adding these hints. > I personally would consider adding them. > This is really the debate. My viewpoint was that we should mention the Classful subnets for IPv4 as part of the nominal IPv4 networking with CIDR, IPv4 Private Reservations (IETF RFC1918), etc... in LPIC-1, largely as example, common /8, /16 and /24 CIDRs, especially when talking about RFC1918 concepts. My further viewpoint is that I don't think putting Classful Subnets as part of DNS in LPIC-2 is really a good idea. The concept of Classful Subnets have more to do than with just DNS like the Classless in-addr.arpa Delegations (IETF RFC2317). SIDE NOTE: Again, my mistake for using in-addr.arpa as just one example, as it caused people to become fixated on it alone. I'm really sorry if I insulted anyone. But I also feel a few might have taken offense merely because I pointed out Classful subnets are still relevant to several services. Nobody likes it when several agree something is a good idea, and largely "case closed," only for me -- and I often play that "Devil's Advocate" -- to come in and say it's still relevant, and should not be disregarded. -- bjs
_______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
