Re: Question about potentially implied V6 issues

Hi Chris,

Well, first of all, welcome to the list! I'm sure the trainers that
hang around here will eventually chime in (weekends can be kind of
quiet it seems these days) but in the mean time, unless something has
changed recently, I think any IPv6 tasks will be clearly identified as
such. There just isn't enough time in a one-day trip to the lab to
duplicate everything you'll be required to do for both versions.

Cheers,

Scott
____________________________________________
There are only 10 types of people in the world:
Those who understand binary and those who do not...

On Jan 29, 2011, at 12:25 , Chris Proctor wrote:

> Hi all.
>
> I don't believe I've posted anything before. I want to start off by
> thanking everyone here for some of the great discussions I have been
> reading. Per the FAQ, I have attempted to locate the answer to my
> question before asking, but I think this may be new.
>
> I'm hoping my question doesn't flirt with the NDA but I'd like to
> get some opinions on the following:
> Does a question which has conventionally been asking for a IPv4
> solution imply that IPv6 also needs to be addressed in the lab?
>
> Example:
> If you're required to implement control plane policing of telnet
> traffic into the router, must you police both ipv4 and ipv6 versions?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Chris Proctor
>
>
> --
> This message was scanned by ESVA and is believed to be clean.
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Sat Jan 29 2011 - 16:22:44 ART