It seems totally inappropriate that the PANA WG send their own
evaluation to the DSL Forum.
If the small changes to DHCP we are suggesting to allow incremental
migration from PPPoE are not acceptable,
a different layer 2 solution like IEEE suggested like 802.1af, possibly
coupled with 802.1aj is far preferable than
this address swapping or link local for IPv4 business of PANA.
Even if Layer 3 authentication is takes day, which I find unlikely given
the size of these Layer 2 networks,
I can see many preferable options to PANA:
- HTTPS
- HIP
- SIP
Ralph with the agreement of the AD's moved this discussion to the
int-area, lets have the discussion here not in some little corner.
- Ric
Jari Arkko wrote, around 6/12/07 2:38 PM:
FYI. I plan to send a preliminary response from the ADs to the DSL Forum
at the end of this week. This response will indicate that we have
discussed the topic of DHCP authentication and the state of the
discussion (issues raised, ongoing debate, feeling from the meeting,
discussion will continue on the list, etc.).
Alper has asked for an opportunity for the PANA WG to send a their
evaluation of PANA's suitability for DSL Forum's requirements. Such an
evaluation can be sent along as well, but in that case the status of
that evaluation i.e. ongoing debate will also be indicated.
Additional responses will be sent when we make final conclusions on the
mailing list.
Hope this clarifies,
Jari
_______________________________________________
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
