Re: ospf authentication

Well, I don't think it was a waste of everyone's time, but if that's
what Brian thinks - it's what it is.

And yeah... it looks like this is what industry has become. A lot of
egos that cannot accept when they are _slightly_ wrong.

It has been long time since there was an off-chance of a technical
discussion involving an instructor on this list. It's one of the
reasons why I stopped posting. In this case I wanted to make an
exception and add to the technical value, alas... as usual, it
deteriorated.

Back to the dungeon.

--
Marko Milivojevic - CCIE #18427 (SP R&S)
Senior CCIE Instructor - IPexpert
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 16:31, Paul Negron <negron.paul_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. B Is this what the CCIE industry has
>> become? B 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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net