dot1x specification EAPOL-Logoff clarification
    Artur Hecker 
    hecker at wave-storm.com
       
    Wed Apr 30 16:29:39 CEST 2008
    
    
  
Hi
>>> That said, I agree with the underlying strategy. I would have  
>>> loved to
>>> see DHCP integrated with 802.1X from the very beginning. Actually, I
>>> would have gone farther and rather proposed a virtual and generic
>>> signaling protocol for the session opening, where a client can  
>>> negotiate
>>> all kinds of options with the network on all layers at the same  
>>> time.
>>> This can be easily done with TLV, etc. Then, a provisioning server  
>>> could
>>> not only open the access but also preprovision the client with IP
>>> config, proxies to use, existing printers, available servers (SMTP,
>>> shares, etc.) etc etc etc, even before it gets IP layer access. That
>>> would have been very nice for an enterprise integration. But well.
>>>
>>
>>  That's called EAP-TTLS, with extra stuff inside of the tunnel. :)
>>
> What's the deal with chaining EAP Methods inside an EAP TTLS  
> tunnel.... could you run EAP-MSCHAPv2 - EAP-TNC - EAP-DHCP  
> (Fictitious EAP type) inside the same tunnel ?
>
> Authentication - NAC - Configuration :)
That's what I meant. You could actually map this to a virtual  
interface (a signaling channel) and put the whole mobility things,  
network and service discovery, etc. on it: handoffs, mDNS, UPnP,  
whatever, to discover where you are and what it is. All that signed /  
encrypted with the authentication keys, previously established.
Fine for an enterprise and technically this is not a problem.
But it is not wanted, for two reasons:
1. The IETF's EAP-WG does not want it. EAP is authentication, not a  
generic transport.
You could come up with something simular and standardize it through  
IEEE and IETF, ok. but there is problem nr 2:
2. Even if it is ok for an Enterprise network, it is not ok for the  
Internet, which IETF is responsible for. It means indeed a different  
access model. The local provider becomes a bit too mighty in this  
configuration, so it cannot become a generic standard. This has been  
recently discussed at HOKEY, I believe.
artur
    
    
More information about the Freeradius-Users
mailing list