Yoshihiro Ohba wrote, around 22/11/07 2:59 PM: > Section 2 of TR-101 says: > > "The principle guiding this specification work is that the resulting > functions should enable an as smooth as possible migration process > from an ATM based aggregation network to an Ethernet based aggregation > network." > > Terminal originated PPPoE is mentioned also in TR-101 (e.g., Figure 15). > >>From customer's point of view, it would be natural to think that a > *smooth* migration path includes support for existing PPPoE terminals > to be able to migrate to Ethernet based aggregation network without > necessarily upgrading their legacy CPEs to RGs. > > In this thread, when the discussion comes to end-host support, I > always see inconsistency between what is stated in the DSLF > requirements (and TR-101) and what is stated by proponents of DHCP > authentication. If IPAuth-8 and IPAuth-9 are not really requirements, > why not re-send revised requirements officially from DSLF to IETF? > Unless requirements are revised, I don't think we can make a progress.
I am sorry I do not see the inconstancy, the requirements make perfect sense if you understand that the TR's have multiple deployment models in them. TR-101 is about moving from an ATM uplink for DSLAMs (access nodes) and TR-101 mandated no changes to the CPE or RG's. WT-148 which we are working on now is not TR-101 and while all involved want the minimum changes it is well understood that we cannot remove PPPoA and PPPoE from the system without changing the CPE. The system must provide a model for supporting PC's with no change to the software of the PC is provided in TR-101 and it does not involve a credential exchange. This system must continue to work in the new proposal and the DHCP Authentication draft has a section on handling clients that do not support the authentication mechanism. Regards, Ric _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
