Subject: RE: [Pana] Issue150: PAA mandating separate authentication

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 10:47:00 -0600

> 
> Okay I understood that but maybe I am still missing 
> something.  Since the
> PAA lives in the Access network I would think that if it offers NAP
> authentication that it should get it.  After all it seems 
> that it's the right thing to do.

It depends on the deployment model. For some nodes (which do not
have an ISP subscription etc. or do not want to authenticate with
their ISP at the current access network), NAP authentication enables
network access. In other cases, ISP authentication is sufficient 
for the local access network to authorize network access. 

> 
> Otherwise I actually don't understand why one would do NAP 
> authentication.
> And if it isnt clear then maybe we should simplify the model and only
> support ISP authentication.  I think clients would just be 
> configured to ignore NAP authentication altogether.

I think the flexibility is essential for PANA. So I do not believe
there is a need for change.

> Avi

-Basavaraj

_______________________________________________
Pana mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana

---

From: Alper Yegin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 11:26:50 -0800

Raj,

> for the local access network to authorize network access.

In fact, ISP subscription is "must", and NAP subscription is "may". We
engineered the protocol based on this.

Alper