Subject: RE: Problem Statement and Scope of WG

From: George Tsirtsis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 14:03:16 -0500

You mean things like DSL, ATM, FR, Cable?

-----Original Message-----
From: John Schnizlein [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 7:41 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Problem Statement and Scope of WG

It would be helpful if a short list of examples of the "other link-types"
that lack link-layer authentication mechanisms were inserted here.
The question persists: what is the size of the gap to be covered by PANA?

John

At 07:39 PM 4/3/2002, [email-masked] wrote:
>...
>Currently only IEEE 802 type links have a native encapsulation for EAP. 
>None of the other link-types define how to carry EAP although they might 
>have their own protocols for access authentication and authorization. 
>Even when the link-layers have their own protocols, using EAP provides 
>a standard, flexible, and extensible tool for authentication. This is 
>where PANA will be used to provide the link-layer agnostic encapsulation
>for EAP. By using PANA, individual link-layers don't have to define 
>their own speciic encapsulations to take advantage of EAP.

---

From: John Schnizlein <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 14:26:16 -0500

That might be an appropriate list, but my impression is that hosts
attach to these through either PPP or 802.1 bridging. 

Does anyone actually connect IP hosts directly to FR or Cable? 
The case for IP/ATM (without IP/PPP/ATM) is stronger, but didn't 
the market already choose against this for host attachments?

John