> > > Some of the key issues to keep in mind here are:
> > >
> > > 1) Is the logical link point-to-point, or is it shared among
> multiple
> > > devices of the same subscriber, or is it shared among multiple
> > > subscribers?
> > > Requirement IPAuth-18 and WT-146 implies that all three are legal
> > > models.
> >
> > According to my understanding, the architecture is intended to be
> capable
> > of
> > identifying the data traffic of an authenticated client, and enforcing
> a
> > policy on it. This relies on network element placement, of course.
> 
> I don't see how your response above is relevant to issue #1, which is
> the link model.

I think there are a number of different models supported by the
architecture. I was trying to answer your question based on how it may
relate to access authentication. I'll let a more DSL-clueful person explain
us the link model(s).


> > > 2) Is the problem about authenticating access to the local link, or
> > > about authenticating access to the network behind the L3 edge
> device?
> >
> > I think it is both.
> 
> If it is both, and the link is capable of carrying non-IP traffic (like
> Ethernet is), then a L3 solution would be particularly inappropriate.

WT-146 provided by DSLF is all about "IP sessions." So, I presume non-IP
traffic is out of scope.

Alper



> 
> -Dave
> 
> > I'm not aware of a case where clients are authorized
> > to
> > send/receive IP traffic with the others connected to the same
> DSLAM/BRAS,
> > but not with the ones on the Internet.
> >
> > Alper
> >
> >
> >
> > > There's no significant difference in the point-to-point link case,
> but
> > > in the other two models, the difference becomes very significant.
> So
> > > for example, for subscriber-to-subscriber communication where
> > > subscribers are on the same shared media, do you care about
> restricting
> > > access between them?  If so, then L3 is the wrong place to solve the
> > > problem, and the whole notion of IP Sessions is suspect for this
> > > particular problem.  Indeed, the requirement would be for a
> > > network-layer-protocol-independent solution.  Basically you would
> want a
> > > mechanism which is L2-independent as well as L3-independent.
> > >
> > > 3) Since power management is an important issue for many hosts, and
> > > there can be (per WT-146) hosts on the link, it is important to not
> > > constantly ping hosts with packets that can result in the host
> coming
> > > out of a low power state, as this can drastically increase the power
> > > costs (either in electric bill, or battery life) to consumers.
> Hence
> > > page 17 of WT-146 can be scary to many people.
> > >
> > > -Dave
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:35 PM
> > > > To: Internet Area
> > > > Cc: Dhc Chairs
> > > > Subject: [Int-area] DSL forum liaison statement on subscriber
> > > > authentication
> > > >
> > > > This relates to the earlier discussion on using DHCP or something
> > > > else for subscriber authentication and/or network access control.
> > > >
> > > > We have received a liaison statement from the DSL forum.
> > > > Please see
> > > >
> > > >   https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file457.doc
> > > >   https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file458.doc
> > > >   http://www.dslforum.org/techwork/tr/TR-101.pdf
> > > >   http://www.arkko.com/ietf/intarea/dsl2006.887.03.doc
> > > >
> > > > Comments on these requirements and potential approaches
> > > > to satisfying them would be appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > Jari
> > > >
> > > > P.S. The last two items have been missed in the IETF liaison
> > > > site; I'm working to get them up there.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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

Reply via email to