-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
> I'd also vote against this since the standardized definition of > cryptographic authentication (AuType = 2) was designed to accommodate > different hash algorithms. Based on the discussion heretofore, it > seems that its definition satisfies this requirement. Additionally, I > don't see any compatibility problems with implementations > unequivocally map AuType 2 to MD5 authentication. As one would > expect, authentication will fail (at least with a very high > probability :^) if there is a mismatch between configured hash > algorithms. Agreed--I would agree this is the best way to handle this. :-) Russ - -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] CCIE <>< Grace Alone -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE63IWER27sUhU9OQRAlQ9AKDMTNxCGSlvsYfm13dimdbPkZUBMwCgxLPO kG7cKpSwagLsx+4T2ZjbB+Q= =wtHk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
