There is no point in getting lost in the TR-101 text.
You said to look at the requirements, so we did it.
It reads in plain English:
Should be simple to implement on client (PC or CPE)
Unless PC is not "PC", there is no point in arguing....
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Pruss [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 10:53 AM
> To: Yoshihiro Ohba
> Cc: Alper Yegin; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Combined draft on DHCP authentication
>
>
>
> 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
