From: Howard C. Berkowitz (hcb@gettcomm.com)
Date: Mon Sep 27 2004 - 01:28:13 GMT-3
At 11:10 PM -0500 9/26/04, Jonathan R. Charles wrote:
>The lack of the hassle is the downside?
>
>From what I have been reading, IPv6 doesn't look that bad, but I can see how
>it can quite easily become a complete nightmare... Doing the binary
>aggregation of multiple 128 bit numbers is going to seriously be annoying.
The design of the aggregatable unicast address space should be
easier, not harder, to summarize, at least in the global Internet.
Depending where you are in the food chain, you will aggregate at TLA,
SLA, or NLA. There won't be as many global prefix lengths as there
are today.
>
>And when it comes to multicast and ICMP, and everything else that has been
>altered completely, it will present a challenge that will be quite difficult
>to master by even the most experienced engineer.
>
>I can almost envision the CCNA exam of 2011 requiring you to summarize 20
>IPv6 addresses...
>
>
>
>
>Jonathan
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Scott Morris [mailto:swm@emanon.com]
>Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 22:43
>To: 'Jonathan R. Charles'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: Ipv6? [7:93034]
>
>The "address-family" is akin to creating a separate RIB/routing process.
>Remember, in OSPF we have local process numbers where nobody cares. In
>EIGRP it's AS driven, but you either match or you don't. In BGP, we want to
>retain the same single AS number no matter who we talk to (generally).
>
>IPv5 was a minor variant compatible with IPv4 that some people didn't think
>was nearly as much of a hassle to converting things to hexadecimal and
>giving away more IP address space than we could use even after we colonize
>Mars.
>
>;)
>
>
>Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713, CISSP,
>JNCIP, et al.
>IPExpert CCIE Program Manager
>IPExpert Sr. Technical Instructor
>swm@emanon.com/smorris@ipexpert.net
>http://www.ipexpert.net
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>Jonathan R. Charles
>Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 2:35 AM
>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: Ipv6? [7:93034]
>
>A friend of a friend said he was at Networkers and Cisco said it would only
>be a very basic configuration on one link, where you would have to apply the
>address and get connectivity going, nothing major, no routing protocols, no
>interlacing of IPv4 and IPv6 for all your BGP speakers.
>
>Remember IPv6 implementation is not around the corner, it is not even in
>this time zone for the general networking community.
>
>I suspect highly that the configuration will be simple, basic and probably
>only worth 2 points or so.
>
>While we are on the topic, what is this whole 'address-family' thing for
>mBGP referring to? Would you subconfigure two routing processes inside the
>BGP AS, one for IPv4 and the other for IPv6?
>
>Also, what ever happened to IPv5? Was it a complete disaster?
>
>
>
>
>Jonathan
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>Sameer@mesiniaga.com.my
>Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 00:54
>To: Scott Morris
>Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: Ipv6? [7:93034]
>
>Hi Scott,
>
>Thnx for your advice...Can you also clarfiy whether IPV6 will be a sub topic
>in CCIE LAB JAN 2005 or The entire IP Addressing will be IPV6.
>
>Thnx & Regards
>Sameer Tandon
>
>
>
>
>"Scott Morris" <swm@emanon.com>
>Sent by: nobody@groupstudy.com
>20-09-04 11:22 AM
>Please respond to "Scott Morris"
>
> To: "'James'" <james@towardex.com>, "'Joseph D. Phillips'"
><josephdphillips@fastmail.us>
> cc: "'group study'" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Subject: RE: Ipv6? [7:93034]
>
>
>Saying it's no different is a huge understatement. :)
>
>Many rules change when it comes to how you program the routing protocols...
>However, in the grand scheme of things, just realize that it is not a "core"
>topic....
>
>Learn the general concepts and know how to look things up on the DocCD...
>The CD has very good information about dealing with IPv6.
>
>788 pages is nice if you want to implement it. Skimming it, playing with it
>once or twice and knowing where to look it up is nice if you want to not
>freak out when it shows up on your CCIE lab exam in January!
>
>HTH,
>
>
>Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713, CISSP,
>JNCIP, et al.
>IPExpert CCIE Program Manager
>IPExpert Sr. Technical Instructor
>swm@emanon.com/smorris@ipexpert.net
>http://www.ipexpert.net
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>James
>Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 5:12 PM
>To: Joseph D. Phillips
>Cc: group study
>Subject: Re: Ipv6? [7:93034]
>
>On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 01:51:24PM -0700, Joseph D. Phillips wrote:
>> We just have to memorize this:
>>
>> http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios123/123cgc
>> r/ipv6_r/ipv6book.pdf
>>
>> It's only 788 pages. Should be no problem.
>>
>> Seriously, though, the paucity of discussion on this topic is unusual.
>>
>> What are we supposed to know by 1/1/2005?
>>
>> Or whenever...
>
>IPv6 is not any different than IPv4 with exception of few proto related
>cosmetic changes such as anycast, etc, etc. As far as inter-routing goes its
>not any different in conceptual thoughts.
>
>You do need to get some idea of how the subnetting and addressing types
>work, which there is a good documentation here:
>
> http://www.tdoi.org/ipv6.php
>
>There are lots of IPv6 addresses to spare today and there are few tunnel
>brokers / tunnel providers who can provide anyone with a tunnel and live BGP
>session to setup IPv6. You will then need to know how to setup MP-BGP for
>ipv6-unicast and do basic ipv6 static routing and stuff -- if you have
>multiple routers, learn about v6 isis or ospfv3 as appropriate. One can
>easily assign one of the cisco routers in your rack with a live public IP to
>terminate the ipv6-in-ipv4 tunnel and get a /48 v6 delegation to lab it up
>with thru the entire rack.
>
>If you have strong conceptual knowledge in ipv4 routing (IGP, BGP), you
>should not find problems quickly picking up IPv6 routing.
>
>There are few tunnel brokers who also can throw in a BGP feed for enduser to
>play with, such as hurrican electric tunnelbroker (www.tunnelbroker.net).
>
>I myself also run a relatively large 6bone pTLA network providing free
>experimental transit to several ASN's (some tunnels, some native), if anyone
>is also interested.
>
>HTH,
>-J
>
>--
>James Jun TowardEX
>Technologies,
>Inc.
>Technical Lead Network Design, Consulting, IT
>Outsourcing
>james@towardex.com Boston-based Colocation & Bandwidth
>Services
>cell: 1(978)-394-2867 web: http://www.towardex.com , noc:
>www.twdx.net
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Subscription information may be found at:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Subscription information may be found at:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Subscription information may be found at:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Subscription information may be found at:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Subscription information may be found at:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 01 2004 - 15:00:49 GMT-3