Service provider experience has proven this to be true with Security
issues and Distributed DOS attacks.

Best regards,
Bill Welch
-----Original Message-----
From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 5:13 PM
To: Bill Welch
Cc: Alper Yegin; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Internet Area
Subject: Re: [Int-area] DCHP-based authentication for DSL?

Nobody says that you have to apply QoS treatment and filters to the 
temporarily assigned address.

Bill Welch wrote:
> Alper,
>
> It's just a matter of resource management and managing state on the
> BRAS/BNG.
>
> With PPPoE you have the following steps:
> Authentication
> Resource assignment (Address, QoS, filters)
>
> With PANA you have the following:
> Temp resource assignment (Address, QoS, filters)
> Authentication
> Removal of temp resources (Address, QoS, filters)
> Service resource assignment (Address, QoS, filters)
>
>
> The Addresses, Qos and filters will not be the same for temp resource
> assignment and Service resource assignment.
>
> Every login is four step process vs. a two step process and you have
to
> manage some type of token or identifier between the authentication and
> service resource assignment.
>
> Best regards,
> Bill Welch
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alper Yegin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 9:08 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Bill Welch
> Cc: 'Internet Area'
> Subject: RE: [Int-area] DCHP-based authentication for DSL?
>
>
> I think we need to understand this a bit better, as now we are talking
> about
> implementation optimizations.
>
>   
>> The fact that the BRAS/IP Edge equipment in this case do not have
>> to "distribute" a full subscriber IP state in the BRAS until the
>> subscriber is okay, is a big advantage to the subscriber bring up
>>     
> rate.
>
> How is the situation different if you were using PANA? 
>
>   
>> Having a solution that assigns a temporary address or uses a link
>>     
> local
>   
>> address complicates the implementation and does not mirror the
>>     
> existing
>   
>> PPPoE solution.
>>     
>
> Can you please expand on the complication part? Please note that the
IP
> address configured prior to subscriber authentication is not the
> "service IP
> address". 
>
> Also, even with DHCPv6, the client is already configured with a
> link-local
> IPv6 address prior to sending the very first DHCPv6 message. 
>
> Alper
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply via email to