On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:32:23 -0400 Scott Morris <s...@emanon.com> wrote:
> I'm going to have to pull the "mixed-hat" on this one. If you are > comparing this to a true "academia" environment, I'd agree with you. > Too much theory, not enough reality in things. However, I've yet to see > the part about where the person is being trained from. > > I happen to train people at CCIE level. I also happen to do consulting, > implementation, and design work. In my training environment, there are > all sorts of re-thinking of what/how things are being taught even within > the confines of comparison to a lab environment. But that's a personal > point of view trying to keep reality involved and be worthwhile. > > I'm not trying to open any sort of debate or can of worms here, but just > because one is receiving training does not mean the instructor has no > functional knowledge of something. I'm interested in hearing the > playout on this one as well. > > How many addresses do you like on point-to-point circuits? > How ever many the protocol designers thought there should be. > Scott > > > > George Michaelson wrote: > > > > On 13/10/2009, at 12:54 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > > > >> On Oct 12, 2009, at 7:34 PM, Justin Shore <jus...@justinshore.com> > >> wrote: > >>> I'm actually taking an IPv6 class right now and the topic of > >>> customer assignments came up today (day 1). The instructor was > >>> suggesting dynamically allocating /127s to residential customers. I > >>> relayed the gist of this thread to him (/48, /56 and /64). I expect > >>> to dive deeper into this in the following days in the class. > >> > >> Out of curiosity who is conducting this class and what was their > >> rationale for using /127s? > >> > >> Doug > > > > As a point of view on this, a member of staff from APNIC was doing a > > Masters of IT in the last 3-4 years, and had classfull A/B/C > > addressing taught to her in the networks unit. She found it quite a > > struggle to convince the lecturer that reality had moved on and they > > had no idea about CIDR. > > > > I have from time to time, asked people in ACM and IEEE about how one > > informs the tertiary teaching community about this kind of change. The > > answers were not inspiring: compared to civil engineering, where > > compliance issues and re-training by professionals is almost regulated > > (sorry for the R- word) as a function of professional indemnity > > insurance and status, its much more common for the syllabus to be > > under continual review. > > > > -George > > > > >