17 Sep
2012
17 Sep
'12
2:53 p.m.
On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 19:40 +0100, Phil Mayers wrote: [...]
...nicely summarises my thinking on the matter.
It has has a few small advantages. None are compelling to me, and I think I'm pretty typical. Why would someone in my position move away from TEAP?
More to the point, why would someone in my position spend hundreds of man-hours deciphering the TEAP RFC and writing the code, when it's notably more complex than PEAP for little gain?
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-emu-eap-tunnel-method-01 says that TEAP is "based on EAP-FAST [RFC4851] with some minor changes", of which you can find implementations around -- Stelian Ionescu a.k.a. fe[nl]ix Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. http://common-lisp.net/project/iolib