Re: ospf authentication

I think you all 4 super Geeks -(2xbrians, *bik and Marko) have done great
contribution to this topic.

1. Brian cleared up the theory
2. Narbik tried to simplified the whole thing in a layman's term (as he
always do)
3. Marko at the other end of the world picked up on what others are not
doing and did the CLI work to showed how OSPF auth actually works at bits
and bytes level.

End of the day, all those are 3 contributions are really great!

Well done all of you.

happy piss competition - do it often please :)

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Narbik Kocharians <narbikk_at_gmail.com>wrote:

> The reason we were discussing this matter was because of a question that a
> student asked and it had nothing to do with ego at all, when people
> disagree with u or your partner it should not be considered a waste of
> time. I did not like the way it was worded and still don't, u either like
> the discussion or u don't, if u like to join in U r welcome, of u don't
> care to join in then read the link that your partner referenced.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 11, 2012, at 6:03 PM, Brian Dennis <bdennis_at_ine.com> wrote:
>
> > My point wasn't that Brian McGahan or Narbik was wrong and it hurt one
> of their egos. My point was that someone would even take the time to get
> involved in something like wording semantics.
> >
> > People on here need help learning topics like MPLS VPN troubleshooting,
> OER/PfR, EEM scripting, multicast troubleshooting, route redistribution,
> etc but not the semantics of null vs no. If someone wants to debate that
> they should take it off line.
> >
> > --
> > Brian Dennis, CCIEx5 #2210 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/SP/Voice)
> > bdennis_at_ine.com
> >
> > Internetwork Expert, Inc.
> > http://www.INE.com
> >
> > On 03/11/2012 05:26 PM, Marko Milivojevic wrote:
> >> 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. 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
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________________________________
> >>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Tue Mar 13 2012 - 00:27:28 ART