Subject: [Pana] DSLF response

From: "Alper Yegin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 00:51:35 +0200

https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file509.doc

Sorry for the late notice. The posting on the IETF liaison page was delayed
due to the holidays.

Alper 

_______________________________________________
Pana mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana

---

From: "Alper Yegin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:30:44 +0200

While we are continuing to evaluate all options, we would observe that there
are some subtleties with respect to TR101 and WT156 that would currently put
a PANA approach at a significant disadvantage. These specifically apply to
requirement 14.

Firstly, a DHCP based solution was desirable due to the minimal impacts to
existing state machines at BNGs and Access Nodes given the existing option
82 based solutions. In addition, current implementations at BNGs and Access
nodes trigger filtering on the DHCP ACK transaction.

Alper> DHCP ACK triggering can still be used with PANA -- the ACK of the
DHCP executed after successful PANA.

Secondly, there is a complication with respect to TR101 based access nodes
in that PANA clients would not have L2 connectivity to other clients, hence
link local address assignment is not an option. 

Alper> I assume this is about how clients cannot hear the ARP responses/NA,
and may end up configuring conflicting link-local IP addresses with each
other. But I thought DSL networks can support overlapped IP address space,
for supporting wholesale-retail case. And IPv6 support certainly needs this
be handled, as link-local addresses are a must-support for IPv6. Can someone
shed some light to this issue?

This would appear to leave short DHCP leases as the only viable alternative.
We are concerned that the requirement to coordinate the states of multiple
DHCP leases, PANA and the existence of connectivity to the PANA client
(which we currently specify as instrumented via BFD) is an unpalatable
complexity burden.

Alper

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alper Yegin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 12:52 AM
> To: [email-masked]'
> Subject: DSLF response
> 
> Sorry for the late notice. The posting on the IETF liaison page was
> delayed due to the holidays.
> 
> Alper