Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks

Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> Sat, 03 July 2010 16:02 UTC

Return-Path: <iljitsch@muada.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AEC43A68A4 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Jul 2010 09:02:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.151
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.151 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.448, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ss3fcDHMpqY4 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Jul 2010 09:02:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sequoia.muada.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:1af8:2:5::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2C9A3A6889 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Jul 2010 09:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.11] (static-167-138-7-89.ipcom.comunitel.net [89.7.138.167] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id o63G2Ipm064548 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 3 Jul 2010 18:02:20 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com)
Subject: Re: Admission Control to the IETF 78 and IETF 79 Networks
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinMFsrGyIy9bu5kzUiZqNmDbf7lpS-eht8h3hvP@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2010 18:02:31 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CCD1D0AD-97DC-4CE0-9E27-CC75B5F47C54@muada.com>
References: <CFB08C07-DE90-47BE-ADFF-FC72162BBFA1@daedelus.com> <4C2BBD51.2060605@ietf.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20100701070804.0c26b8a0@resistor.net> <6D6E25E2-057B-4591-9288-1283036D0374@cisco.com> <AANLkTinMFsrGyIy9bu5kzUiZqNmDbf7lpS-eht8h3hvP@mail.gmail.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2010 16:02:32 -0000

On 2 jul 2010, at 2:30, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

> It has taken ten years for WiFi to get to a state where an adequate
> credential mechanism is supported, and it is still clunky.

What are you talking about?? Enterprise type WPA where you authenticate against a back end server has been around for years, and with WPA2 it supports good encryption, too.

> And they
> still don't have a decent mechanism to support the typical coffee shop
> type access mode.

Well, you could use WPA(2) there too. People who don't have a working account yet for the hotspot in question would then log in as guest, create an account and then log in with that account.

But I would argue that the IETF in general has ignored access control to IP networks and how this interacts with provisioning of addresses and other information once PPP was out the door. Look at the backflips that are required to provide ethernet-based broadband access. Although we can partially blame this on the lack of uptake of 802.1x which handles the authentication, but that still makes (IP-over-)ethernet-based broadband problematic because of its point-to-multipoint model that isn't appropriate for providing services.