Re: [pcp] Comparison of PCP authentication

[Yoshihiro Ohba <[e-mail]>]

Hi Margaret,

In my opinion, PANA should be dedicated to PCP authentication in both
cases where PANA runs over PCP port.

In other words, we can say that PANA is used for network access
authentication only when PANA operates over PANA port, regardless of
whether the same or different credentials are used for PCP
authentication and network access authentication.

Yoshihiro Ohba

(2012/08/16 20:41), Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> 
> Hi Yoshi,
> 
> On Aug 15, 2012, at 11:41 PM, Yoshihiro Ohba wrote:
> 
>> Here is a brief comparison on both PANA-based schemes:
>>
>> Encapsulation/tunneling approach:
>> - Pros: No impact on PANA specification
>> - Cons: Encapsulation overhead
>>
>> Demultiplexing/port-sharing approach:
>> - Pros: No encapsulation overhead
>> - Cons: Impact on PANA specification (an Update of RFC 5191 is needed
>> on the use of "Reserved" field.)
> 
> In both cases, I think there is an open question (raised by my regarding your draft) of whether we want to modify PANA so that the server will know that it is performing PCP authentication vs. network access authentication.  I think this could be important, if we want a single PANA server to be able to serve both purposes in a small network.  It is possible that the credentials/criteria used to authenticate a node for PCP will be different than for network access, isn't it?
> 
> Margaret
> 
> 
>