Do we have some actual data about the availability of 802.1X switch passing feature in DSL deployments? Would the upgrade for that be a software or a hardware upgrade? What's the standardization status of the switch passing feature in IEEE?
Jari Richard Pruss kirjoitti: > I do not get your point? If you are saying we can fix this by changing > 802.1x, and changing every low end switch and every aggregation switch > in broadband, as well as the RGW and BNG currently involved in PPPoE, > then bravo, you get right on that. > > In the meanwhile two vendors and a couple of service providers have a > proposal that requires changing the RGW and BNG only. > > - Ric > > > Bernard Aboba wrote, around 9/10/07 3:48 PM: >>> DHCP requests are broadcast, whereas EAPoL packets are not. >> >> EAPoL packets are sent to a non-forwardable multicast address in >> wired networks, and to a unicast address in IEEE 802.11. >> >>> The first issue is simply that 802.1x does not traverse a switch. >> >> Not so. Forwarding of IEEE 802.1X frames is a frequently implemented >> feature in switches. For example, this feature is routinely >> supported on low end switches and VOIP handsets with switch ports. >> >>> A whole world of issues arise when you try break that part of 802.1x >>> by having it traverse a switch as 802.1x is port authentication, not >>> host authentication >> >> Again, not true. IEEE 802.1X switches today routinely support MAC >> address state, not just port state. In fact, this feature is >> supported within the Cisco 65xx series switches. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
