You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The current NHRP implementation uses a Cisco-style static secret in the NHRP_EXTENSION_AUTHENTICATION extension. However, RFC 2332 (Section 5.3.4.3) specifies that authentication should use SPI-based lookup and hash calculation, not direct secret comparison.
This Cisco-style format doesn't include SPI or hashing and doesn't follow the RFC-defined structure. According to the RFC, vendor-specific formats like this should be placed in a Vendor-Private Extension (Type 8), not in the standard authentication type.
Is this behavior intentional for Cisco compatibility? If so, would it make sense to either:
move it into a vendor-private extension, or
clarify in the docs that this is not RFC-compliant?
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
The current NHRP implementation uses a Cisco-style static secret in the NHRP_EXTENSION_AUTHENTICATION extension. However, RFC 2332 (Section 5.3.4.3) specifies that authentication should use SPI-based lookup and hash calculation, not direct secret comparison.
This Cisco-style format doesn't include SPI or hashing and doesn't follow the RFC-defined structure. According to the RFC, vendor-specific formats like this should be placed in a Vendor-Private Extension (Type 8), not in the standard authentication type.
Is this behavior intentional for Cisco compatibility? If so, would it make sense to either:
move it into a vendor-private extension, or
clarify in the docs that this is not RFC-compliant?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions