Subject: RE: Question for vendors and operators

From: "Robert Boxall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 14:17:53 -0500

I have developed and have had implemented an EAPoUDP system that is in
use in several locations in the states. This works between our public
access gateway and client application (either windows or java in
webpage).

This is fully compatible with funk and several other major RADIUS
servers and provides a clean layer 3 solution. We took this approach as
802.1x was/is a nightmare to use and a somewhat 802.11 centric kludge,
we also wanted layer 2 agnostic solution. We have also added several
nice features such as the ability to push URLs to users. We also have
an IPSEC tunnel ability with AES that we developed. Keys are generated
after mutual authentication.

We found many problems with 802.1x and our EAPoUDP system during this
exercise and I intend to fix this on the second iteration of my work.

Robert

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 11:21 AM
To: Wang, Cliff
Cc: [email-masked]; "Beadles, Mark A"@smartpipes.com;
[email-masked]
Subject: RE: Question for vendors and operators

Hi,
We are a company specializing in AAA for wired & wireless network,
based in
seoul,korea.
We plan to offer 802.1x soultion(Funk Steel betled RADIUS) to major
carriers such as Korea Telecom, Dacom and Hanaro, among others.
I think PANA BURP is much better than 802.1x since it is Layer2
independent.
Definitely, PANA would be a viable soultion to PPPoE and 802.1x, at
least
in korea.

rgds,

Sun Kim
VP / Business Development
Cloudwave Inc. Seoul
82-2-501-2552(office)
82-16-358-6317(mobile)

                    "Wang, Cliff"

                    <CWang@smartpi       수신인:
"[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>,  
                    pes.com>              [email-masked]

                                         참조인:       "Beadles, Mark
A" <[email-masked]>                 
                    2002-04-09           제목:          RE: Question
for vendors and operators                     
                    12:47 AM

I work for an IP service software company. Our product enables service
providers to deploy IP based service via policy based provisioning.
Currently we support remote access IP service. Our vision is to support
a
broad range of remote access technology. We view PANA as a future IP
service
we can deploy and manage when the technology is implemented in the
boxes.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 8:01 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Question for vendors and operators

Hello,

We would like to hear from vendors and operators if PANA would be
something
that solves a problem in their networks and hence would like to see it
standardized.
Would PANA be something that operators would deploy as an alternative to
doing authentication via PPPoE or PPP or 802.1x or via http redirect?

-Basavaraj

---

From: "Aoki Hidenori" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 12:10:17 +0900

Hello

I'm working for a celluar phone company in japan.
We will start a trial wireless LAN hotspot service this month.
In the trial system we employed two kinds of authentiction.
One is http redirection which is a network layer authentication and push URL
to the users.this is our system's main authentication.
The other is mac address based authentcaiton in wirelss LAN access point
which is a link layer authenticaion to reduce a threat of ip spoofing.

We don't think mac address based authenticaion is enought to offer  a public access
service and PANA would be a solution to develop our system.

 Hidenori Aoki
 NTT DoCoMo Inc. Wireless Link Development Dep.
 Phone : +81-3-5156-1767 FAX : +81-3-5156-0285
 E-mail : [email-masked]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Boxall" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 4:17 AM
Subject: RE: Question for vendors and operators

>                     <CWang@smartpi       ¼ö½ÅÀÎ:
>                                          ÂüÁ¶ÀÎ:       "Beadles, Mark
>                     2002-04-09           Á¦¸ñ:          RE: Question