On 15 Apr 2004, at 06:42, Chris Hellberg wrote:
I knew that I phrased that wrong just after I clicked "send"
I meant the IGP type rather than packet/PDU authentication :)
Yeah, I realised that, hence the "obscurity" comment. But if there are concerns about as-yet unknown vulnerabilities in routing protocols that might be exploited, authentication and segregation is a better defence than trying to keep the name of the IGP a secret. (For exterior protocols, which by definition aren't a secret, authentication is a good idea for the same reason. RFC 2385 is a really good idea, as it turns out.)
I wonder if it's common that at BOFs and presentations you'd find engineers from ISPs and such talking on the subject of solvung problem xyz or why they find abc good in a particular IGP.
It's common at every netops meeting I've ever been to. It wouldn't be much of an Internet if engineers didn't talk to each other. Also, there'd be a risk of a curry glut on Thursday evenings. Joe