Subject: RE: [AAA-WG]: AAA for IPv6

From: "Kobylarz, Thaddeus" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 14:22:42 -0400

Randy,
	I'll gladly comply with your request.
Thad

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Bush [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 1:51 PM
To: Kobylarz, Thaddeus
Cc: AAA Working Group Mailing List; [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: [AAA-WG]: AAA for IPv6

> 	I agree with your suggestion that the "AAA WG would be a place for
> the Diameter application to be created".  Consideration is being given in
> 3GPP SA5 to utilize in several application scenarios that have
requirements
> variations.  It would be very helpful to have the AAA WG as a resource to
> examine the scenario requirements and provide their advice.  

when, and only when, those scenarios are in the internet-drafts directory.

randy

---

From: "Patil Basavaraj (NET/Dallas)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 11:02:24 -0500

>> It seams to me that the subject of "AAA for IPv6" has at least two
>> components that may potentially belong to different WGs. One is the
>> communication between the end node and the access router
>

It may be the "access router" or some other entity in the access
network. 

>This first component would appear to be exactly what the URP effort is
>focusing on. That is, URP is focused on the problem of how does an
>edge device "log in" and authenticate itself to the network. This
>initial step (becoming authorized to use the network) may be tied in
>with access control on a router, but that is a separate issue and does
>not appear to be directly tied to the URP protocol. I.e., URP allows a
>device to authenticate itself with some local server, that local
>server may then (behind the scenes) grant permission to other devices
>on the local network (e.g., routers) to allow packets from the device
>to be forwarded. But the mechanism for doing that would likely be
>separate (and possibly already existing) protocols rather than URP
>itself.
>

Precisely.
Thank you Thomas for "URP in a nutshell".

>Thomas

-Basavaraj

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 16:36:49 +0300

Bernard Aboba wrote:
> > 
> > I think the URP WG should be chartered ASAP and AAAv6 taken 
> there as a
> > possible solution. Where can I find the current proposal for the URP
> > charter?
> > 
> 
> Just as the AAA WG is not the appropriate place to do the 
> work of subject
> area WGs, it is not appropriate for subject area WGs to design AAA
> protocols. We have separate WGs so that subject matter experts can
> congregate and focus on their area of expertise. So it would 
> be best for
> URP to be handled in URP WG,  AAA in AAA WG, and IPv6 in IPNG WG. 
> 

Well, I meant the part of the AAAv6 draft that is applicable to the URP
scope. The protocol stuff in the draft is focused on the interface(s)
between the host and an "attendant" node in the network, which clearly is
not in the AAA WG scope.

	Jarno

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 12:10:47 +0200 (CEST)

> Bernard,
> It was rough consenus on the IPv6 WG meeting that this was something that is
> of interest of IPv6 WG and the WG supports that it becomes a AAA WG item.

I'm not sure about that one.
For one thing the "this" above can have rather different 
interpretations:
 - the general problem area
 - the more specific problem as specified in the draft in question
 - the solution specified in the draft

At the most IPNG discussed the first bullet as I recall.

  Erik

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 11:25:00 -0700 (PDT)

Please take this to the Cisco TAC, rather than spamming multiple IETF
mailing lists. 

On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, [iso-8859-1] Harold De Dios wrote:

> 
> Hi i have been having troubles whit a cisco 3640, 
> i installed cisco IOS image 12.2T.