Subject: Re: [dhcwg] BBF and DHCP auth, was: We really mean it this time *FINAL* agendafor dhc WG meeting

From: "David Allan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:48:30 -0400

Hi Folks:

Before this conversation gets too sidetracked, BBF still has an open
requirement for an authenticated session delineation mechanism as part
of our work on WT146. That has not changed since our last liaison.

At that time, our membership favored DHCP as when option 82 is
considered, it is one protocol that would tie together knowledge of user
(or whatever term you prefer for the trust chain that offers up
credentials), facility, IP address and MAC address with minimal overall
modifications to equipment and/or state machines.

As such, we still have a gaping head wound w.r.t. our aspirations and
are tracking industry developments, but our overall thinking has not
changed in the intervening interval.

Hope this helps
Dave Allan
BBF A&T Co-Chair

---

From: "Alan Kavanagh" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:41:12 -0400

802.1x is also considered in BBF and would also be most suitable for our
needs.

Alan K

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of David Allan
Sent: March 20, 2009 9:49 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; Young, Gavin
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] BBF and DHCP auth,was: We really mean it this time
*FINAL* agendafor dhc WG meeting

Hi Folks:

Hope this helps
Dave Allan
BBF A&T Co-Chair
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: "David Allan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:16:13 -0400

Agreed, and I think scenarios are arising whereby we may need both given
the discussions around ALA and regulatory models that we had at the Q1
meeting...

Cheers
D

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Kavanagh [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 11:41 AM
To: Allan, David (CAR:NS00); [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; Young, Gavin
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] BBF and DHCP auth,was: We really mean it this time

Alan K

-----Original Message-----

Hi Folks:

Hope this helps
Dave Allan
BBF A&T Co-Chair

---

From: "Alper Yegin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 04:05:22 +0200

Hi David,

Could you or someone else enlighten the IETF community about the "ALA and
regulatory models". Once DSLF had provided the set of requirements to IETF.
If there is a change on that, it'd be good to know and understand.

Regards,

Alper

> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 8:16 PM
> To: Alan Kavanagh; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] BBF and DHCP auth, was: We really mean it this
> time *FINAL* agendafor dhc WG meeting
>

---

From: "David Allan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:47:12 -0400

HI Alper:

ALA is "Active Line Access", an unbundling model proposed (?) by the UK
Office of Communication. It is a layer 2 wholesale handoff to provide
service providers ability to get at shared access plant. Ofcom proposes
a minimum specification for interoperability at the handoff points
(based around 802.1ad/TR101 thinking). A further expectation elucidated
by several carriers is that the number of handoff points may be quite
large and pushed closer to the access node than we have previously
considered.

IMO this does not alter our requirements for L3 session delineation &
authentication, but does suggest that a concept of L2 session may also
exist AND that these could be hierarachical in setup. I do NOT think it
changes any of the basic thinking to date, simply suggests that models
besides static provisioning of access to L3 may exist.

I hope this helps
Cheers
Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Alper Yegin [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 10:05 PM
To: Allan, David (CAR:NS00); 'Alan Kavanagh'; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; 'Young, Gavin'
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] BBF and DHCP auth, was: We really mean it this time

Hi David,

Could you or someone else enlighten the IETF community about the "ALA
and regulatory models". Once DSLF had provided the set of requirements
to IETF.
If there is a change on that, it'd be good to know and understand.

Regards,

Alper

> Agreed, and I think scenarios are arising whereby we may need both 
> given the discussions around ALA and regulatory models that we had at 
> the Q1 meeting...
> 
> Cheers
> D
> 
> 802.1x is also considered in BBF and would also be most suitable for 
> our needs.
> 
> Alan K
> 

> considered, it is one protocol that would tie together knowledge of 
> user (or whatever term you prefer for the trust chain that offers up 
> credentials), facility, IP address and MAC address with minimal 
> overall modifications to equipment and/or state machines.
>

---

From: "Alper Yegin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:18:12 +0200

Dave,

Thank you for the response.

In my understanding, unless that unbundling calls for separate L2 and L3
authentication, then it should not impact the discussion we have so far.

Alper

> From: David Allan [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 3:47 PM
> To: Alper Yegin; Alan Kavanagh; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [dhcwg] BBF and DHCP auth, was: We really mean it this