From: simon hart (simon@harttel.com)
Date: Sun Oct 30 2005 - 21:27:30 GMT-3
I would suggest that you make yourself familiar with IPv6 QOS, NAT-PT and
tunneling. I am not saying these will necessarily be on the lab, but I am
sure they can come up.
Just because the blueprint does not have a section on IPv6 QOS or IPv6
NAT-PT explicitly does not mean a thing.
When you read the blueprint, I would treat it as a general topic. The
blueprint says QOS - not IPv4 QOS. The blueprint mentions GRE, mmm, that is
Generic Routing Encapsulation - which means you can use it for almost
anything (not just IPv4).
When there is an expectation of full reachability you need to know all your
options, this includes IPv4 and IPv6 - so NAT-PT, ISATAP, 6to4 I would say
are all fair game. So I would do yourselves a favour and at least
familiarise yourselves with these topics, find where they are on the DocCd
and configure them at least a few times in order to understand where the
pitfalls are.
Prior to my last attempt, I think I tried and covered every IPv6 scenario I
could make up from the command set / configuration guide on the DocCd. I
really think this put me in good stead for the IPv6 section of the lab. Not
even 5% of the IPv6 stuff I learned was covered in the lab, but it made that
little 5% heck of a lot easier.
HTH
Simon
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Schulz, Dave
Sent: 30 October 2005 23:27
To: Dave Temkin ; nobody@groupstudy.com; Victor Cappuccio
Cc: Bajo ; Chula Bandara ; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: ipv6
Agreed. I had heard this same thing from one of the proctors...expect more
core technologies, not necessarily more IPv6.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com
To: Victor Cappuccio
Cc: Bajo; Chula Bandara; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Sent: 10/30/2005 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: ipv6
In talking with the proctor before the lab, we inquired about the
changes
coming in January. He said to expect other features to be added (IOS
features in 12.3/4, etc.. to make up the lost points) and that they
wouldn't
necessarily beef up IPv6 past where it is today because they don't see
the demand for it.
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, Victor Cappuccio wrote:
> That Fair Game Stuff Sounds Great, so they could have something to
make you
> think a while, and know where to find stuff in the Doc CD. But what
about
> today's Lab what's the likelihood you get questions outside the
blueprint.
> (not next year Lab?)
>
> Nice Question Chula!
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bajo" <bajoalex@gmail.com>
> To: "Chula Bandara" <chula_bandara@hotmail.com>
> Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 7:06 PM
> Subject: Re: ipv6
>
>
> > Hi Chula,
> > Without breaking NDA and given ISDN, ATM, etc are removed, you
should
> > expect more of IPv6. Anything is a fair game.
> >
> > On 10/28/05, Chula Bandara <chula_bandara@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all i am going through the archives for couple of weeks now. i
have
> > > seen
> > > IPv6 QOS , IPv6 NAT-PT
> > > questions being discussed.
> > >
> > > I see IPV6 only under IGP and BGP sections of the R&S blueprint. (
not
> > > under
> > > QOS or IP IOS features)
> > > whats the likelyhood you get questions outside the blueprint.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Nov 06 2005 - 22:00:55 GMT-3