Re: ospf authentication

There was no argument at all. In fact, all those that were a part of the
discussion agreed in the end. Especially after I had an off thread
explanation by Brian himself. There needs to be more off thread discussions
in my opinion, especially when you are having a disagreement. Call it a
professional courtesy.

I can understand how you would respond like that though. I have been seeing
a lot of people performing mental masturbation on this sight and makes me
sick as well. I was under the impression it was meant to help people not
prove people wrong. (Unless they are asking for it.:-))

I think that ended up being a good discussion all in all. Would you not
agree Marko, Narbik and Brian?

I actually agree with what you said by the way.

Paul

-- 
Paul Negron
CCIE# 14856 CCSI# 22752
Senior Technical Instructor
> From: Brian Dennis <bdennis_at_ine.com>
> Organization: INE, Inc
> Reply-To: Brian Dennis <bdennis_at_ine.com>
> Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 15:12:01 -0700
> To: <ccielab_at_groupstudy.com>
> Subject: Re: ospf authentication
> 
> I of course didn't read this email thread as I'm sure it's a total waste
> of anyone's time but I have to ask.  Is this what the CCIE industry has
> become?  People arguing about semantics to boast their own egos?
> 
> If someone is too confused and can't wrap their head around the fact
> type 0 authentication means authentication isn't done (aka disabled,
> null, no, etc) but is considered an authentication type that can be set
> as per the RFC, then that someone doesn't need to be a CCIE to begin with.
> 
> -- 
> Brian Dennis, CCIEx5 #2210 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/SP/Voice)
> bdennis_at_ine.com
> 
> Internetwork Expert, Inc.
> http://www.INE.com
> 
> 
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> 
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net