From: Brian Lodwick (xpranax@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Mar 22 2002 - 13:24:34 GMT-3
Nice. I believe then that if you read into the requirement I made up, it
would not be valid.
I guess the terminology would have to be provide "security" not provide
"authentication".
>>>Brian
>From: "Edmund Roche-Kelly" <edr9007@nyp.org>
>To: Brian Lodwick <xpranax@hotmail.com>
>CC: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: Re: OSPF authentication per-link *****OSPF AUTHENTICATION 4DUMMIES
>plus******
>Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 09:24:19 -0500
>
>Brian Lodwick wrote:
> >
> > If a requirement said to not have authentication on one link, and you
>used
> > the NULL method it is questionable that authentication is still
>configured
> > on that link, but the password is NULL?
> > Any comments on this thought?
> >
>All OSPF packets are authenticated, you just sometimes have
>null authentication. NULL just means that the authentication
>field is set to zero.
>
>From the RFC:
>
>Moy Standards Track [Page 192]
>
>RFC 2178 OSPF Version 2 July 1997
>
>
>D. Authentication
>
> All OSPF protocol exchanges are authenticated. The OSPF packet
> header (see Section A.3.1) includes an authentication type field, and
> 64-bits of data for use by the appropriate authentication scheme
> (determined by the type field).
>
> The authentication type is configurable on a per-interface (or
> equivalently, on a per-network/subnet) basis. Additional
> authentication data is also configurable on a per-interface basis.
>
> Authentication types 0, 1 and 2 are defined by this specification.
> All other authentication types are reserved for definition by the
> IANA (iana@ISI.EDU). The current list of authentication types is
> described below in Table 20.
>
> AuType Description
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:57:17 GMT-3