Re: [HOKEY] ERX-12 -- Please review changes

[Yoshihiro Ohba <[e-mail]>]

Roundtrips between EAP peer and EAP authenticator on the access link
are not major part of signaling latency compared to AAA roundtrips.  I
have not heard a complaint on 802.11i 4-way handshake latency.

Although it would be a nice thing to reduce any kind of roundtrips as
much as possible, I am not sure, after reading the IETF Last Call
comments, people outside the HOKEY WG seem to wonder if the expected
benefit for more optimization with ERX pays to its deployment cost
especially for existing lower-layers.  This is my main motivation to
come up with EAP-KDE method.

Yoshihiro Ohba

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 05:31:08PM -0800, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
> Hi Bernard,
> 
> I have reviewed draft-ohba-eap-kde-01 before and it does not meet fast 
> reauthentication goals.  Please see below:
> 
> On 2/25/2008 3:24 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> > 
> > [BA] I've recently seen a draft (from Yoshi, submitted today) that  seems
> > to provide similar functionality with no changes to RFC 3748.  Although
> > I haven't reviewed the document in depth, it did seem to provide
> > method-independent re-authentication without multiple round-trips
> > (at least for case of a local ERX server, which is the most important
> > one from a performance point of view). 
> 
> The number of roundtrips on the access link is 3, if we take connection 
> open or an equivalent into account.  With ERP, the peer can start 
> sending authenticated data after 1 RT.
> 
> > 
> > This document will probably be discussed in IEEE 802, which could adopt
> > it as their approach to EAP re-authentication going forward.
> 
> In other access technologies, the handover latency requirements are more 
> stringent and they have already adopted ERP and waiting for publication 
> of the ERP RFC.  Without further optimizations, 802.11 with 3 RTs or 
> more for connection setup and EAP-KDE and 2 more for the 4-way exchange 
> has little to no hope of really achieving low handover latency.
> 
> That model does not fit for voice call continuity.
> 
> regards,
> Lakshminath
> 
> > 
> > If possible, it would be good to have a single standard for this, as opposed
> > to multiple competing ones.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> HOKEY mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hokey
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
HOKEY mailing list
[e-mail]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hokey