[lpi-discuss] Re: More work for the objective review -- IPv4/6
LINKLOCAL and SITELOCAL
Bryan J. Smith
b.j.smith at ieee.org
Thu Aug 18 12:07:54 EDT 2005
Torsten Scheck <torsten.scheck at gmx.de> wrote:
> I see your point, and I agree with you. Still, I'd be
> careful with including this in the current objectives
> review to keep the amount of change low.
> Let's hope that our JTA won't yield that Linux sysadmins
> usually are also netadmins. ;-)
My #1 focus has been _sysadmin_, period. That's why I ask
people to read up on IPv6 for private networks, not the
"address space" that is part of 99% of articles.
I posted 4 _very_ "real world" questions over on LPI-ExamDev
here (login required):
For those not on the list, one involves the fact that Mozilla
uses IPv6 _by_default_ when enabled on an interface. This is
_extremely_ "real world."
The other 3 are "real world" variations on the fact that IPv6
is commonly used to connect select corporate subnets who were
using their own 10.x.x.x IPv4 blocks. It's much easier,
quicker and far more controlling than putting in 1:1 NAT
devices. As a sysadmin, you don't need to know the reasons
why, that's for netadmins.
But as a _sysadmin_ in the "real world," you _do_ need to
know the 2 _private_ IPv6 prefixes that matter ...
IPv6 FE80:: (254.128::) ~ IPv4 169.254.
IPv6 FEC0:: (254.192::) ~ IPv4
Bryan J. Smith | Sent from Yahoo Mail
mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org | (please excuse any
http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ | missing headers)
More information about the lpi-discuss