Cisco - 100-105 question

>>59303398
install gentoo

>>59303398
none, the actual answer is RFC 4632

Sorry but this is from the actual test and these are the only answers I can pick from.

RFC 1918, the three private address ranges to use behind NAT
It's not that hard...

As >>59304895 said it's 1918.

But tell me, if you need to braindump to get your CCNA and can't even go to ietf.org to read RFCs, do you really think you're going to be successful as a networking guy?

>>59303398
RFC 1918 is unique local IP spaces (192.168.0.0/16, 172.16.0.0/12, 10.0.0.0/8), usually used in combination with NAT so that your whole space only uses up one public IP address.

RFC 1518 and 1519 introduce CIDR, 1518 being the idea (and has now only historical status) and 1519 being the correct answer for Cisco.
Before it you had classful networks: /8, /16, /24 only. /24 was too small for most, /16 too big for small businesses and too small for big businesses and /8 definitely too big, therefore most businesses went with the bigger class to accomodate all their devices.
For example you need 500 IP addresses: /24 gives you 254, therefore you go one bigger and get about 60 thousand. That's about 59500 thousand IP adresses wasted.

RFC 4193 is about unique local IPv6 adresses and therefore not correct, though advancing IPv6 MIGHT count as alleviating the PROBLEMS coming with the depletion of IPv4, but this is Cisco and they are very finicky with their wording.

This is why some people say those three are all true.

>>59304815
>RFC 4632
is about the best current practise (current being 2006), CIDR was created 1993 though (to which the answers date)

>>59303398
I see why you posted this here. It's almost too stupid to post in the SQT.

File: 1475157201510.jpg (494KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 1024x768px

>>59304920
Just because RFC 1918 is very well known doesn't mean it's automatically the correct answer. Look up the RFCs yourself.

>>59305081
It actually is not if you read OPs question carefully. There is no agreement on what is the correct answer to this question in the Cisco community, he wanted to know why there is no agreement.

>>59305039
Thank you. That is my confusion. RFC1518/19 introduces CIDR which does help with wasted IP addresses and RFC1918 introduces NAT so that 1 public IP address is needed for a business,,

Seems like both answers the need to alleviate the Ipv4 address shortage