Some of the key issues to keep in mind here are: 1) Is the logical link point-to-point, or is it shared among multiple devices of the same subscriber, or is it shared among multiple subscribers? Requirement IPAuth-18 and WT-146 implies that all three are legal models.
2) Is the problem about authenticating access to the local link, or about authenticating access to the network behind the L3 edge device? There's no significant difference in the point-to-point link case, but in the other two models, the difference becomes very significant. So for example, for subscriber-to-subscriber communication where subscribers are on the same shared media, do you care about restricting access between them? If so, then L3 is the wrong place to solve the problem, and the whole notion of IP Sessions is suspect for this particular problem. Indeed, the requirement would be for a network-layer-protocol-independent solution. Basically you would want a mechanism which is L2-independent as well as L3-independent. 3) Since power management is an important issue for many hosts, and there can be (per WT-146) hosts on the link, it is important to not constantly ping hosts with packets that can result in the host coming out of a low power state, as this can drastically increase the power costs (either in electric bill, or battery life) to consumers. Hence page 17 of WT-146 can be scary to many people. -Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:35 PM > To: Internet Area > Cc: Dhc Chairs > Subject: [Int-area] DSL forum liaison statement on subscriber > authentication > > This relates to the earlier discussion on using DHCP or something > else for subscriber authentication and/or network access control. > > We have received a liaison statement from the DSL forum. > Please see > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file457.doc > https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file458.doc > http://www.dslforum.org/techwork/tr/TR-101.pdf > http://www.arkko.com/ietf/intarea/dsl2006.887.03.doc > > Comments on these requirements and potential approaches > to satisfying them would be appreciated. > > Jari > > P.S. The last two items have been missed in the IETF liaison > site; I'm working to get them up there. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
