RE: legacy /8

["Stephen Repetski" <skrepetski () gmail com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Hess [mailto:mysidia () gmail com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 2:08 PM
> To: George Bonser
> Cc: nanog () nanog org
> Subject: Re: legacy /8
>
> On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 11:31 AM, George Bonser <gbonser () seven com>
> wrote:
> > Any school teaching v4 at this point other than as a legacy protocol
> > that they teach on the second year because "they might see it in the
> > wild" should be closed down.  All new instruction that this point
> > should begin and end with v6 with v4 as an "aside".  But that isn't.
>
> They would be doing the student, their customer, a disservice to not teach
> both, with emphasis on V4,  just because one possible speculated outcome
> in the years ahead is that IPv4 becomes a legacy protocol.
> Schools do not have crystal balls, and they can't know how important
> IPv4 or IPv6 will be to those taught later.

I've been taking some networking classes for my undergrad college degree,
and there've only been about 3 mentions of IPv6 during the whole time I've
been here (at supposedly a high-tech school). Also, did I mention we're
still being taught classful networking? I've never heard my professors udder
the CIDR acronym or talk about subnetting. Hopefully this changes as
students progress into  the higher-level classes, but I wouldn't want to be
the one attempting to get a job with no knowledge of what's changed since my
professor was in school.

----------
Stephen (Trey) Repetski
skr3394 () rit edu | skrepetski () gmail com
srepetsk.net    | RIT '13, TJHSST '09