> From: Alper Yegin, December 03, 2007 5:08 PM > > > On the other hand, if the IETF doesn't do a standard, then we're > > really hosed, because the ISPs may implement solutions for which the > > IETF has already done a standard exactly for this problem: PANA.
If PANA was the right tool to solve this problem, then I would gladly help implement it. For reasons already well discussed on this alias, I see the operational complexities on the CPE as unnecessary (& possibly prohibitive), at least for the Broadband marketplace. IMHO, 802.1af is the next best option to DHCP Auth for a standards based alternative. But 802.1af is still quite early in its process. I am with Ted in hoping that we don't assist in driving proprietary alternatives in any interim. > What we are discussing is additionally defining another > protocol, a fully redundant one (putting aside all of its > problems), just because some like that other protocol. > > > Alper > > > > > protocol is not specified in an open way. So refusing to cooperate > > here may cause more harm than good - it would be better if we could > > find a solution that's acceptable to everyone, even if it > is not one > > that everyone can love (do we ever have one of those?). > > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
