Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] Latest Challenge draft issued

From: Patrice Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 08:59:08 -0700

The draft does not prohibit the FA from talking to a local RADIUS server.

PatC
>
>Pat, Gopal,
>
>Patrice Calhoun <[email-masked]> (PC) writes:
>
>>> I don't see why Mobile IP WG should limit the use of RADIUS.
>
>PC> I'd like to understand better your insistence on using RADIUS to address
>PC> this problem when a working group has deemed that it is insufficient, and
>PC> a new WG has been setup to address the problem.
>
>I think everyone understands that RADIUS is not a good long term solution
>to the roaming problem when there are mutually untrustworthy parties in
>a roaming consortium.  However, in the short term, and for situations
>where there is a greater degree of trust among the parties (maybe even
>the single-domain case!) RADIUS may be all we have to work with.  I don't
>see why the Challenge-Response draft should prohibit the FA from using
>whatever mechanism it has available to verify the challenge-response to
>its satisfaction.
>
>Note that this could apply to a non-roaming case: both the MN and FA
>belong to the same administrative domain, but the administrator
>decided it was easier to configure a Challenge-Response secret than a
>MN-FA secret, so that clean support for both non-Mobile IP PPP CHAP
>and Mobile-IP FAC clients could be provided.  RADIUS is perfectly
>acceptable for this environment.  For these reasons, I think the draft
>should just specify the MN-FA interface (such as authentication
>algorithms) and then get out of the way when it comes to back-end
>processing.
>
>PC> PatC
>
>PC> PS: Why do I feel I'm at a 3gpp meeting? :)
>
>:) Maybe because 3GPP2 is the main customer for this draft...
>
>-Pete
>

---

From: Gopal Dommety <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 09:49:08 -0700

> The draft does not prohibit the FA from talking to a local RADIUS server.

Please see me previous email for concerns.

Thanks
Gopal