Re: ISP customer assignments

[Scott Morris <swm () emanon com>]

I'm going to have to pull the "mixed-hat" on this one.  If you are
comparing this to a true "academia" environment, I'd agree with you. 
Too much theory, not enough reality in things.  However, I've yet to see
the part about where the person is being trained from.

I happen to train people at CCIE level.  I also happen to do consulting,
implementation, and design work.  In my training environment, there are
all sorts of re-thinking of what/how things are being taught even within
the confines of comparison to a lab environment.  But that's a personal
point of view trying to keep reality involved and be worthwhile.

I'm not trying to open any sort of debate or can of worms here, but just
because one is receiving training does not mean the instructor has no
functional knowledge of something.   I'm interested in hearing the
playout on this one as well.

How many addresses do you like on point-to-point circuits?

Scott



George Michaelson wrote:
> On 13/10/2009, at 12:54 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> > On Oct 12, 2009, at 7:34 PM, Justin Shore <justin () justinshore com>
> > wrote:
> > > I'm actually taking an IPv6 class right now and the topic of
> > > customer assignments came up today (day 1).  The instructor was
> > > suggesting dynamically allocating /127s to residential customers.  I
> > > relayed the gist of this thread to him (/48, /56 and /64).  I expect
> > > to dive deeper into this in the following days in the class.
> >
> > Out of curiosity who is conducting this class and what was their
> > rationale for using /127s?
> >
> > Doug
>
> As a point of view on this, a member of staff from APNIC was doing a
> Masters of IT in the last 3-4 years, and had classfull A/B/C
> addressing taught to her in the networks unit. She found it quite a
> struggle to convince the lecturer that reality had moved on and they
> had no idea about CIDR.
>
> I have from time to time, asked people in ACM and IEEE about how one
> informs the tertiary teaching community about this kind of change. The
> answers were not inspiring: compared to civil engineering, where
> compliance issues and re-training by professionals is almost regulated
> (sorry for the R- word) as a function of professional indemnity
> insurance and status, its much more common for the syllabus to be
> under continual review.
>
> -George