Subject: RE: Question for vendors and operators

From: "Beadles, Mark A" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 16:16:52 -0000

From: [email-masked]:
>And all we are trying to do in this WG is to develop a solution that
>would basically enable what you describe below. So I do believe there
>is a real need for such a solution to be standardized in the IETF.

Basavaraj,

In relation to the question you have posed and the responses I have seen,
please help me understand the following question:

"Is it the intent of this WG to specify a new protocol to replace the PPP
protocol suite in _wired_ as well as wireless access scenarios?"

If "yes", what reason is there to replace a standardized, deployed, accepted
protocol which works well for wired access? (This question is rhetorical).

If "no", then is the work of this WG limited to the wireless space?

I suspect the answer is "no" since all the responses I have seen to this
question have been specifically limited to wireless scenarios.  Is my 
suspicion correct?  Is the PANA intended to be limited to wireless or is it
Intended to be more generic in scope?

Thanks
Mark

+ Mark Anthony Beadles  + [email-masked] +
+       Chief Architect + SmartPipes, Inc.        +
+   Vox 614.923.5657    +     Fax 614.923.6299    +

---

From: "Alper E. YEGIN" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 11:00:57 -0700

Mark,

> protocol suite in _wired_ as well as wireless access scenarios?"

The intent is not to replace "PPP". But in scenarios where PPP is used
*only* for its authentication capability, PANA can be used instead. (So,
PANA can not replace all functionalities of PPP in every usage scenario).

> If "no", then is the work of this WG limited to the wireless space?

No, it is not. It runs over IP, and one can deploy this solution
whereever IP runs.

> Intended to be more generic in scope?

Definitely generic. It's upto the people to deploy it in whatever
environment
they wish to. The protocol design doesn't have to assume wired or wireless.

alper