Alper possibly this has been the problem with this thread. You simply
do not understand that half the complexity in the DSL deployment is the
Layer 2 parts of TR-101.
- Ric
Alper Yegin wrote, around 22/11/07 7:16 PM:
There is no point in getting lost in the TR-101 text.
You said to look at the requirements, so we did it.
It reads in plain English:
Should be simple to implement on client (PC or CPE)
Unless PC is not "PC", there is no point in arguing....
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Pruss [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 10:53 AM
To: Yoshihiro Ohba
Cc: Alper Yegin; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Combined draft on DHCP authentication
Yoshihiro Ohba wrote, around 22/11/07 2:59 PM:
Section 2 of TR-101 says:
"The principle guiding this specification work is that the resulting
functions should enable an as smooth as possible migration process
from an ATM based aggregation network to an Ethernet based aggregation
network."
Terminal originated PPPoE is mentioned also in TR-101 (e.g., Figure 15).
>From customer's point of view, it would be natural to think that a
*smooth* migration path includes support for existing PPPoE terminals
to be able to migrate to Ethernet based aggregation network without
necessarily upgrading their legacy CPEs to RGs.
In this thread, when the discussion comes to end-host support, I
always see inconsistency between what is stated in the DSLF
requirements (and TR-101) and what is stated by proponents of DHCP
authentication. If IPAuth-8 and IPAuth-9 are not really requirements,
why not re-send revised requirements officially from DSLF to IETF?
Unless requirements are revised, I don't think we can make a progress.
I am sorry I do not see the inconstancy, the requirements make perfect
sense if you understand that the TR's have multiple deployment models in
them.
TR-101 is about moving from an ATM uplink for DSLAMs (access nodes) and
TR-101 mandated no changes to the CPE or RG's. WT-148 which we are
working on now is not TR-101 and while all involved want the minimum
changes it is well understood that we cannot remove PPPoA and PPPoE from
the system without changing the CPE.
The system must provide a model for supporting PC's with no change to
the software of the PC is provided in TR-101 and it does not involve a
credential exchange. This system must continue to work in the new
proposal and the DHCP Authentication draft has a section on handling
clients that do not support the authentication mechanism.
Regards,
Ric
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
