EAP-TEAP support on the radar?
aland at deployingradius.com
Mon Jun 29 13:56:08 CEST 2020
On Jun 29, 2020, at 7:40 AM, Joe Garcia <joe27256 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Alan DeKok <aland at deployingradius.com> wrote:
>> It turns out that the TEAP RFC is incomplete, and can't really be implemented as-is.
> I was wondering about that, that RFC looks like yet another attempt by
> Cisco to get their pet design accepted as "the standard" instead of
> whatever it is that's been in universal use by the industry for years,
I was the chair of the EAP working group when TEAP was being standardized. It wasn't just Cisco, there were a few companies behind it.
But... TEAP is largely EAP-FAST with a few minor changes.
> they have a history of doing this in other WGs as well. In this case,
> for example, the introduction carefully worms its way around having to
> justify why TEAP even exists, it states "they all are either
> vendor-specific or informational, and the industry calls for a
> Standards Track tunnel-based EAP method" and then carefully omits to
> mention the Standards Track EAP-TLS that already exists.
EAP-TLS doesn't carry data inside of the tunnel.
> In fact the
> abstract for TEAP could just as well be describing EAP-TTLS. So I can
> see why there'd be no rush to implement it.
I was pushing for people to standardize on TTLS. It is *much* simpler than TEAP. But, the corporate overlords won.
More information about the Freeradius-Users