From: Jason Madsen (madsen.jason@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Oct 27 2008 - 22:08:02 ARST
ah, ok that makes sense...first thing that comes to mind for me is "set ip
precedence" and "set precedence" in policy maps. I believe they do the
same thing, but I'm a bit rusty on my QoS.
J
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Scott M Vermillion <
scott_ccie_list@it-ag.com> wrote:
> >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