Richard Pruss wrote: > So in summary it is not simply a question of software, the EAP proposal > impacts less elements and reuses existing software.
Let's assume that PANA is the best solution. Let's also assume that it's easy to deploy PANA on the client machines, and all intermediate devices. The question that's left is: What is the remaining expense to deploy PANA? A: New server software at every ISP, with fail-over, redundancy, etc. A: Sysadmin training, knowledge, etc. Where do they get this software and expertise? Right now, many sites use Open Source DNS, DHCP, and RADIUS software. There is no equivalent PANA software. Where do they get the expertise to administer these systems? No sysadmin is familiar with PANA. There's no readily available pool of information on the net that helps them through common configurations or problems. There is no PANA book from O'Reilly. There are no PANA Q&A mailing lists. There is no group of sysadmins who understand PANA, and can help newcomers. In contrast, leveraging existing AAA systems means that they simply upgrade their existing AAA software. Any "new" configurations (e.g. EAP) are widely documented on the net, with readily available examples, how-to's, complaints about bugs, fixes, mailing lists, books, user communities, etc. Building that knowledge base is tremendously expensive, and it *doesn't* show up as a line item on the budget. It shows up as every sysadmin getting 50% less work done for a month as they bootstrap their PANA knowledge. I'm not assuming that the DHCP proposal is cost-free. But on the server side, the costs are significantly lower than PANA. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
