Lakshminath, Please see inline... > -----Original Message----- > From: Lakshminath Dondeti [mailto:ldondeti@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 2:32 PM > To: Avi Lior; Pekka Savola; Sam Hartman > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: The Emperor Has No Clothes: Is PANA actually useful? > > Avi, > > EAPoHRPD was designed after a thorough technical evaluation > of PANA proved that the PANA suite of protocols are > unnecessarily complex, and those technical reasons, some of > which you state below, were put forth in front of 3GPP2. I am very knowledgeable about what happened in 3GPP2 wrt to PANA and EAP over HRPD. (Sadly) I would not characterize what happened in 3GPP2 as a thorugh technical evaluation. Nor would I characterize that it was proven that PANA was over complex. The decision taken by 3GPP2 was political. It was based on horse-trading. As I said before the only "techincal comparison" between PANA and EAP over HRPD showed the two protocols using the same number of messages. So the only difference between them was that the PANA messages had the overhead to be expected from UDP. > debate of course was between PANA and EAPoHRPD, and GEE is > but a small optional enhancement to address the case of > parallel EAP authentications. GEE is not an EAP lower layer > and thus it is invalid to compare it to PANA. The statement regaring GEE and PANA was not made by me but rather by your company! In order to sway support towards EAP over HRPD, Qualcom made statements that PANA was dead at the IETF and that GEE will be standardize at the IETF. > > I would further say that discounting the technical evaluation > done elsewhere is fine, but an evaluation based on the same > technical drivers (the complexity of PANA vs. EAP over > link-layers) will need to be done in the IETF. So far > evaluations done by the broader community seem to be > concluding that PANA is in fact complex and not easily deployable. In 3GPP2 deploying EAP over HRPD is not enough. Another proocol was needed to carry the EAP message to the Authenticator in the PDSN. With PANA, the EAP message was carried from the Mobile directly to the PDSN. EAP over HRPD therefore required two portocols. Seems to me that that is far more complex to deploy then PANA. By the way, the same is true in WiMAX. PKMV2 only brings the EAP message to the Base Station, WiMAX had to create another protocol to carry the EAP message to the ASN-GW. Again, don't count 3GPP2 as part of the broader community. That would be a missleading. You don't want to misslead people do you? Hopefully this too will be my last email. But if anyone attemtps to mischaracterize what happened in 3GPP2 I will be sure to chime in again. Avi > This is my last email on this line of arguments. > > best regards, > Lakshminath > > > At 11:19 PM 5/25/2006, Avi Lior wrote: > >If I characterize the 3GPP2 decision not to use PANA I would have to > >say that it was purely based on Politics and not on technical merits. > > > >The politics included misinformation such as telling operators "That > >PANA was dead at the IETF" and that GEE will become a Standard Track > >RFC soon. > > > >Other information cited for not using PANA were: > > > >1- EAP typically runs directly over a link layer. See the following > >text from RFC 3748: > >"EAP typically runs directly over data link layers such as > >Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) or IEEE 802, without requiring IP." > > > >2- HRPD Link Layer satisfies all lower layer requirements as > specified > >in section 3.1 of RFC 3748; for example, the requirements for lower > >layer error detection, minimum MTU, ordering guarantees, etc. > > > >3- PANA is not currently used in any commercial networks (wired or > >wireless) such as DSL, PacketCable, WLAN, WiMAX, 3GPP UMTS, etc. > > > >4- PANA is very complex with excessive protocol overhead > that makes it > >less attractive for use in mobile cellular environments. > > > >5- It's unclear if PANA can reach RFC status within the 3GPP2 > >designated time frame due to fundamental issues that are out > of control of 3GPP2. > >See the companion contribution X31-20060327-030 for a detailed > >explanation of various PANA issues. > > > > > >In particular issue 4, probably the only technical comment > was shown by > >your own company to be an exageration. The analysis showed > that over > >the air the number of message exchanges were the same as > those needed > >by a link layer approach. The only difference was the > overhead of the > >packet headers, which I would not characterize as excessive protocol > >overhead given the context. > > > >The other issues cited have been shown to been inaccurate or > baseless > >in fact. > > > >But I would say that the political campaign against PANA was > executed > >flawlessly in 3GPP2. > > > >I hope that the IETF makes its decisions based on technical merits > >rather then on the success or failure of political campaigns. > > > >Lets therefore not use PANAs failure in 3GPP2 as an example. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Lakshminath Dondeti [mailto:ldondeti@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 3:44 PM > > > To: Pekka Savola; Sam Hartman > > > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > > > Subject: Re: The Emperor Has No Clothes: Is PANA actually useful? > > > > > > The IETF does publish protocols that may or may not be > viable in the > > > real world. I think PANA, after a significant clean up, might > > > belong in that category. I, for instance, have the following > > > high-level issues: > > > > > > ** No real use cases out there, and no real hope either. > > > 3GPP2 HRPD recently joined the growing list of L2 > technologies that > > > ruled out PANA. > > > ** EAP over IKEv2 seems like a more viable alternative: > > > apparently being proposed in 3G-WLAN interworking scenario as the > > > access auth protocol. > > > > > > ** PANA's notions of EP placement seem vague "the EPs' > > > location can range from the first-hop router to other > routers within > > > the access network" (I don't want to paste it all here, but it's > > > Section 7.1 in the framework document). Its crucial for > a protocol > > > that sets out to authenticate clients to enforce access > control, to > > > get the EP placement right. > > > ** PANA has a notion of binding PANA authentication to an > existing > > > secure channel. It is not clear whether it makes sense and the > > > framework document does not have any convincing text. > That notion > > > introduces more problems than solving any, I think. Here are some > > > excerpts: "Networks where a secure channel is already available > > > prior to running PANA." "The presence of a secure channel before > > > PANA exchange eliminates the need for executing a secure > association > > > protocol after PANA." > > > > > > I guess the notion is that the existing secure channel is > > > authenticated but for a different reason and PANA > authenticates the > > > client again for network access and binds the "result" using > > > "filters" to that secure channel. Pretty ad hoc > operation, I must > > > say and I think breaks the EAP model. > > > > > > I can provide a more detailed review, but that's not the > purpose of > > > this thread. > > > > > > My conclusion is -- stealing Bernard's words -- EAP/IKEv2 will do > > > for what PANA is supposed to support. PANA is not needed > really. > > > But if after clarifications, the WG insists that the docs be > > > published, I guess the IESG might publish them as experimental or > > > even move them to historic (not sure how the latter would work). > > > > > > regards, > > > Lakshminath > > > > > > At 11:27 AM 5/24/2006, Pekka Savola wrote: > > > >On Wed, 24 May 2006, Sam Hartman wrote: > > > >>Hi. Speaking as an individual, I'd like to make an > > > explicit call for > > > >>members of the IETF community not involved in the PANA > > > working group > > > >>to review draft-ietf-pana-framework. Please speak up if > > > you have done > > > >>such a review or attempted such a review and been > > > unsuccessful. Let > > > >>us know what you think PANA is intended to be useful for > > > and whether > > > >>you think it is actually useful. > > > >... > > > > > > > >FWIW, I do not believe the current framework document as > written is > > > >sufficiently clear in order to be able to evaluate where > and under > > > >which conditions and assumptions the solution could be deployed. > > > >Therefore it is not feasible to evaluate the usefulness or > > > >applicability of the PANA protocol itself either. > > > > > > > >My review is here: > > > >http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg41231.html > > > > > > > >There has been some follow-up work to clarify and address these. > > > >Based on the discussion, I fear revision would take > > > significant cycles, > > > >so the result remains to be seen. > > > > > > > >-- > > > >Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves > king, yet the > > > >Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." > > > >Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of > > > >Kings > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > >Ietf mailing list > > > >Ietf@xxxxxxxx > > > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Ietf mailing list > > > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf