> > Now the difference between the two proposals is that the PANA one has > an IP encap for EAP with no source IP address, so IP without an IP > address and the DHCP one encaps in a DHCP option in a new DHCP message. > > Well if nothing else we certainly seem to have moved closer together > in terms of proposal over time. Now if we can get PANA to consider > the EAP encap in DHCP instead of an IP packet we can merge the drafts, > as the rest of the state proposal is the same.
Now that you understand that your proposal is simply re-inventing PANA, can you explain to us why IETF should not recommend use of RFC5191 and hack DHCP? Alper _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
