Acee: > I've finally read this draft and I'm less enamored with it than Michael. I > think the > > requirement to protect the source address is valid. However, I think the > assumptions
Yes, i agree and there has been a discussion that this should be done. > regarding sequence number management which are used to justify the > challenge/nouce > are flawed. And why do you think this is flawed? > If you tie the sequence number to the clock (which I'd guess most rational > implementations already do), then there is no reason for this nouncense :^). > Even with a You should not tie anything to the clock since the time can go back. This is also one reason why we dont use the clock to give us the sequence numbers for regular OSPF and IS-IS. Jack _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
