Capwap Mailing List: Re: Certificates, Discovery Request/Reply, and validation.

[Alper Yegin (alper]

>> I'm not comparing PANA with LWAPP. This does not make sense. LWAPP is more
>> like an architecture that tackles several problems. I'm trying to understand
>> what each one of these problems are and see if there are alternative
>> solutions that should be considered.
> ok, which one, specifically?

I've discussed these before, but nevertheless:
- Configuring APs: SNMP, COPS, etc.
- Migration of AAA stuff from AP to AR: PANA
- Auth/Authz between AP and AR: PANA (if physical security is not good
  enough)
- Migration of per-packet ciphering from AP to AR: Either use IPsec with AR,
  or tunnel 802.11 frames on the wired segment. Whether the latter should be
  done at IEEE vs. IETF is debatable.

Did I miss any other problems we are tackling here?

> 
>> PANA comes into the picture when we talk about the AAA between hosts and AR,
>> and AA_ between the AP and AR. I don't see PANA's relevance to all the other
>> bells and whistles LWAPP provides.
> 
> correct, but somehow you keep asking the question. If we agree that we've
> beaten this horse to it's full extent, then I'll gladly oblige...

Please see above.

> 
>>> 
>>> We seem to be focused on EAP only, but again, I think the problem is much
>>> greater in scope - hence CAPWAP.
>>> 
>> 
>> Is there a documented list of problems, like a problem statement? It is
>> really hard to reverse engineer the LWAPP to undertsand the problems we are
>> solving here.
> 
> Other than what's in the current document (which I assume you've read), no.
> However, the problems are well understood enough that many vendors are
> actively building, or shipping, products, all with the same architecture and a
> protocol that looks like LWAPP.
> 
> If the IESG believes that we need to go down the problem statement path, and
> tack on another 12 months of effort to CAPWAP, then we can consider it. But
> personally, having gone through some of this at the IETF, and the fact that
> this is a current problem that is known, I think that the players involve all
> know what we need.

I still feel like missing couple of necessary steps here if we already jump
to solution evaluation stage.

Alper

> 
> 
> PatC
> 
>