> 2) I brought this up in Prague, but I will repeat it here. Service > providers are using DHCP for authentication today. They are just using it > in a primitive form. They rely on the inserted Opt 82 information to > identify the subscriber to Radius.
That's not really "authentication". It is simply "identification" by means of "piggybacking an identifier on the 'DHCP relay protocol' ". This is totally different from the scheme proposed by draft-pruss. > 4) The goal of draft-pruss-dhcp-auth-dsl is to provide an option for > service > providers to maintain their investment in their current AAA > infrastructures > with little or no changes to them. I don't understand how the draft-pruss relates to "maintaining AAA infrastructure". What AAA infra is maintained by means of using draft-pruss, and what infra may need to change if something else is used? > I don't believe it is intended to > alter > DHCP server implementations, but rather proxy/relays/servers that are > implemented in BRAS platforms. I suppose this is really the area for > debate. DHCP terminates on a DHCP server, hence the draft-pruss requires modifications on the server. > 5) Client side implementations that would require modification are > typically > in the control of the service provider. They may be a managed residential > gateway, or a dsl modem. Is there an assumption that draft-pruss works with "service provider managed residential gateways"? Why is that so? Alper _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
