From: Scott M Vermillion (scott_ccie_list@it-ag.com)
Date: Mon Oct 27 2008 - 20:35:26 ARST
>not sure I follow you unless you're saying it could be that the two
>different statements do the same thing.
Yes, that was what I was suggesting (note: not stating as fact because I was
on my way out the door for the gym and I still have loads of QoS to wade
into tonight, so I didn't attempt any kind of verification one way or the
other). I was simply pointing out that when Cisco adds an IPv6 syntax for a
given command, they typically seem to throw in an 'ip' (ipv4 abbreviated)
variation out of a sense of fairness. I think they are slowly migrating in
that direction where all new commands are supposed to have/require either an
'ip' or 'ipv6' syntax, assuming it's a command that could have either
context. But they don't just throw out the older pre-IPv6 syntax all of the
sudden like, so we wind up with two perfectly functional and valid
variations for IPv4 and one for IPv6. Presumably the older pre-IPv6 syntax
will slowly be retired as people begin to think in v4/v6 terms...
Again, just reasonable (IMHO) speculation in this specific case...
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Nov 01 2008 - 15:35:23 ARST