James Kempf wrote:
Economics (==business considerations) *never* come into consideration
when IETF charters new work in contrast to other sdo's.
This thread was largely within the context of understanding the basis
behind the DSL Forum requirements and conclusion, which of course is one
of those "other" SDOs.
That has avantages and disadvantages. One of the disadvantages is that
people can spend years working on something only to see that, sadly,
people would rather deploy a cheap hack. All the money and time
invested in the technology development is then wasted. I've seen this
story played out over and over in IETF, it is only a matter of time
before companies start to question their investment in IETF.
I've seen the "role of business models" in the IETF debated a number of
times, from a number of angles. Perhaps the most important thing to
avoid is anything which could be construed as collusion, and many SDOs
(ironically, not the IETF) have written statements on what is and is and
is not appropriate conduct along these lines. In any case, when it comes
to running code, the IETF very much cares, and that is often driven by
some aspect of "business considerations". So, even if present in our
discussion only via this indirection, it is still a part, ultimately, of
what we do.
- Mark
jak
--------------------------
Sent from my Nokia Handheld with BlackBerry Connect
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Townsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: Internet Area <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Fri Oct 12 06:13:32 2007
Subject: Re: [Int-area] DCHP-based authentication for DSL?
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 11-okt-2007, at 22:48, Richard Pruss wrote:
>
>> That would require PANA snooping on every switch that does Option 82
>> insertion and DHCP snooping today.
>> It would also require a suite of new features on those switches to
>> filter at the IP layer protocol. Current switches do MAC IP matching
>> and security features around those two on a per port basis.
>> This is where the PANA proposal breaks down as it requires every
>> element in the network to change.
>
> I don't think this can be a serious argument against other solutions
> that DHCP, because EVERY solution requires numerous changes. The fact
> that adding authentication to DHCP means a little less ISP
> infrastructure needs to change can't be a reason to reject other
> solutions out of hand.
I can promise you that the economic realities of the solution will most
certainly be part of what the ISP decides to deploy.
> I also don't remember seeing this as a requirement in the list that
> Mark posted.
One of the requirements was: "IPAuth-6 Must fit into TR-101
operational model" - while "fit into" is rather subjective, I think the
spirit here was that the solution shouldn't require major rework to that
design.
> Especially because a DHCP solution would impose considerable issues on
> the end-user side.
Now this is getting closer to what the DSL Forum is asking us. What kind
of issues do you envision here?
- Mark
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
