Subject: RE: PANA FAQ

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 12:59:41 -0500

>I'd like to hear more from others on the issue Basavaraj is raising
>below.
>
>If the scope of PANA  is limited to it being invoked ONLY AFTER the
>client has a usable IP address (e.g., a link-local address in IPv6 or
>a DHCP-learned address in IPv4), will this signficantly limit the
>usefulness of PANA in practice?
>
>I think this point is important because it suggests to me that some
>folks are thinking that PANA should be the first interaction a client
>has with the network, and that no IP address is assigned until PANA
>does its work. If this is deemed important, I think we need to
>understand this sooner rather than later.

For certain types of networks (such as DSL or Cable Modem or Public
WLAN networks), PANA can be considered a viable option for the initial
interaction that a host has with the network to gain access. This
would be quite a useful feature for such networks. 
It is also possible that PANA can be considered as a protocol for
reauthentication of users or for authenticating a user requesting
access to a service or another network.

With IPv4 addresses considered as a scarce resource, network operators
would be unwilling to provide a host with an address until the
authentication phase has completed succesfully. But as you said, it
would be good to hear from operators, their views.

>Thomas

-Basavaraj

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 17:37:29 -0700

Raj,

> would be quite a useful feature for such networks.

Couldn't this simply be included as an extension to DHCP? That way, the
authentication and address provisioning would occur in one transaction,
like PPP authentication.

Of course, there still is an issue with IPv6 stateless autoconfig.

        jak