In addition, I highly suggest that the next revision of draft-pruss-dhcp-auth-dsl to contain an appendix to explain why the proposal needs to be standardized while IETF has completed its basic design of a protocol to carry EAP over IPv4 and IPv6 in order to fill the gap where link-layer EAP transport is not applicable. This would require a thorough and fair analysis on PANA in which a lot of considerations have been taken into account.
Yoshihiro Ohba On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 02:41:40PM +0100, Mark Townsley wrote: > > Ric, any final IETF work that involves IPv4 does has to at the very > least have detailed IPv6 considerations in order to be complete. I > understand that the DSLF IPv6 architecture for IP sessions is very > incomplete, and I am going to personally try and rectify that as much as > I can via my own participation in the Forum. This doesn't mean you are > off the hook for DHCP Auth, and I highly suggest the next version of > your document speak to this in as clear and frank a manner as possible. > > Iljitsch, your comment wasn't exactly written with a constructive tone > either. Let's all please try not to push each others buttons and throw > flames here. > > - Mark > > Richard Pruss wrote: > >Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote, around 19/11/07 7:10 PM: > >>On 19 nov 2007, at 4:32, Richard Pruss wrote: > >> > >>>A combination the DHCP drafts from Cisco and Hauwei on DHCP > >>>Authentication has been submitted and is available at: > >>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pruss-dhcp-auth-dsl-02.txt > >> > >>Doesn't seem to address IPv6. This makes it useless in my book. > >> > >Ahh, you have written a book on authentication in DSL architectures... > >;-) > > > >If you point me to the IPv6 deployment architecture from the DSLForum > >I can send you a draft on how to do the authentication in it. Putting > >EAP into DHCP v6 is no big trick, the real trick is what does the rest > >of the IPv6 architecture look like. > > > >There are a ton of questions like: > > > >a) Do we have multiple services with separate addresses or are they on > >the same address as IPv4. Both approaches have pro's and cons. > > > >b) How far into the L2 architecture are link local addresses allowed. > > > >c) SAVA > > > >and on and on. > > > >It is simply premature to guess at what authentication is appropriate > >and while PANA seems to think they have a hammer for everything. I do > >not think DHCP Authentication may be the write answer to every question. > > > >So leave off the IPv6, we just cannot answer the question with the > >architectures under discussion at the DSLForum. > > > >- Ric > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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
