RE: IPV6 - redistribution

From: Scott Morris (smorris@internetworkexpert.com)
Date: Sun Jan 18 2009 - 20:29:13 ARST


That was Scott's idea... From long ago, back when he worked at that other
vendor. :)

Good to see some things don't change much.

And yes, I could, and have... I just haven't been feeling evil enough to
release it into the wild yet!

Scott Morris, CCIE4 #4713, JNCIE-M #153, JNCIS-ER, CISSP, et al.
CCSI/JNCI-M/JNCI-ER
Senior CCIE Instructor

smorris@internetworkexpert.com
 

Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
Toll Free: 877-224-8987
Outside US: 775-826-4344

Knowledge is power.
Power corrupts.
Study hard and be Eeeeviiiil......

-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Brian Landers
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 10:08 PM
To: Anthony Sequeira; Cisco certification
Subject: Re: IPV6 - redistribution

On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Anthony Sequeira
<asequeira@internetworkexpert.com> wrote:

> If I were a proctor and I made you take the time to configure two
different
> IPv6 routing domains, I certainly would not then have you take a bunch of
> time for a very complex redistribution scenario. As you pointed out - too
> cruel and too out of balance for the rest of the lab.

When I went through my recent bootcamp with [vendor with initials IE
that Anthony doesn't work for], Jared had an evil idea: a CCIE lab
that was 100% IPv6 in the core network. No IPv4 between devices at
all. He mentioned discussing this briefly with a proctor and said the
response was "hmm, that's an interesting idea..."

My initial thought was that there's not enough IPv6-related material
on the blueprint to make a challenging lab, but nothing says you
couldn't have pockets of IPv4 for your services, security, and whatnot
tunneled or NATed across the IPv6 core.

*shudder* I'm not sure if even Scott could come up with something *that*
evil.

-- 
Brian Landers
CCIE #23115

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Mar 01 2009 - 09:43:38 ARST