> -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Thaler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 15 August 2007 23:24 > To: Alper Yegin; Internet Area > Cc: Dhc Chairs > Subject: RE: [Int-area] DSL forum liaison statement on > subscriberauthentication > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alper Yegin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 1:31 PM > > To: Dave Thaler; 'Internet Area' > > Cc: 'Dhc Chairs' > > Subject: RE: [Int-area] DSL forum liaison statement on > > subscriberauthentication > > > [...] > > > > > 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. > [...] > > Yes I think that's a fundamental problem. They're not > considering the larger issues, and as a result some are > asking for a poor solution.
While theretically other protocols may be possible, practically DSL service operators support only IP traffic for residential users, and a majority of business L3 services too. As such the solution requested for this space is precisely for that, no more, no less. -Woj. > > -Dave > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
