[lpi-discuss] Re: IPv6 in exam LPI ?
Bryan J. Smith
b.j.smith at ieee.org
Wed Aug 17 21:17:54 EDT 2005
On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 20:44 -0400, Etienne Goyer wrote:
> Lots of different distro ship with different features and config.
> SuSE ship with YaST; should there be an objective on YaST ?
Poor analogy. _Every_ distro ships with IPv6. Some just enable it.
There is no "different way" to do IPv6, there's only 1 way, and _all_
distros have it.
> RHEL ship with SELinux enabled by default; should there be an
> objective on SELinux ? Etc, ad nauseum.
Now that's a better analogy. Yes, I would argue that the next rendition
of LPIC-1 in 2007+ should have 1-2 questions on how to identify and/or
Considering SELinux is Mandatory Access Controls (MACs) and Role-Based
Access Controls (RBAC), I would argue that it be in the forthcoming
LPIC-3 security exam. We may wish to consider writing 3-4 elementary
questions for the next rendition of LPIC-2 in 2007+ as well.
Both IPv6 and MAC/RBAC are pretty elementary things. Especially
MAC/RBAC whose lack has held up Linux adoption in many areas. E.g., for
those of us who do "[US] federal work" or "state/federal regulated
work." The lack of MAC/RBAC means I have to get exceptions granted from
an auditing standpoint, and that increases both my initial and recurring
load. With MAC/RBAC in the system, that solves many issues, improves
security, and reduces my headaches.
> No, and it's a total non-sequitur.
So you are basing your judgment on knowing nothing about it?
> Before last week, I had never setup a BIND nameserver, but I could
> clearly see the reason for its inclusion in LPIC.
> DNS in general and BIND in particuliar are cornerstones of
> Linux system administration, I could tell that without having ever
> edited a zone file. It thus clearly deserve a place in LPIC objective.
> IPv6 ? I don't think so, and you totally failed to convince me otherwise.
I can't without you being exposed to it. DNS has been around 24 years,
and in widespread adoption over the last 15-20 or so. IPv6 was finally
standardized in the late '90s, and it just started being adopted about
3-4 years ago by corporations (not looking at public funded networks
Whether you are aware of it or not, IPv6 is being adopted in
corporations. I'm talking the LAN aspects of it, not the pie-in-the-sky
hopes of public address enlargement which is still being worked on.
IPv6 of the private LAN and the public WAN will meet in the future.
>From the standpoint of corporations, they are deploying IPv6.
>From the standpoint of distros, they are enabling IPv6.
I'm just expecting an LPIC-1/2 graduate to be aware of it, and how to
turn it off in the case of the latter. And I'd like to have a LPIC-2
not "freak out" or "screw it up" when modifying /etc/hosts, dhcpd.conf,
DNS zones, etc...
> In the end, the question is not an either/or proposition and is pretty
> simple to resolve. Possible objectives have to be listed then
> prioritized. Some of these objectives will fall off the bottom to make
> room for those judged more important, as there is only so many questions
> you can cram in 90 minutes.
Agreed. And when I say 1-2 questions for LPIC-1, and 3-4 questions for
LPIC-2, I'm talking about the _pool_ of questions. It's very likely an
objective will not have 1 question, or just 1-2.
> One thing such a priorization exercise should not become is a popularity
> contest for emerging technologies. Considering the revision of
> objectives is such a huge undertaking, it must be pondered objectivally
> and carefully, and executed in a conservative fashion. I trust LPI to
> make the right choice and do a good job with it.
IPv6 is not an "emerging" technology. It is in production, _now_.
Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith at ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com
The best things in life are NOT free - which is why life is easiest if
you save all the bills until you can share them with the perfect woman
More information about the lpi-discuss