Yes, that individual I-D is productized as a proprietary protocol by one
As I understand it, EAP over UDP is one of the items proposed for
standardization in the NEA WG. That leads me to wonder whether the IETF
will be chartering multiple WGs to standardize EAP encapsulation over IP.
Although my understanding of both PANA and NEA is no doubt
incomplete/wrong/confusled, having multiple EAP encapsulation standards
seems duplicative to me.
As for 3GPP2, I can get into really gory details of what has been happening
there, but it's not technical at all (if you are familiar with 3GPP2 and the
relevant players in this discussion, you can guess).
The issue is that integration of PANA with link layer technologies
requires the support of the organizations that own those link layers.
Without that link layer integration (for whatever reason) the scenarios
can't be realized, at least in a mainstream way.
It seems to me that one of the motivations for PANA is to *avoid* link layer
dependencies in situations where link layer technology is inadequate/can't
be deployed, and a forklift upgrade isn't in the budget. In those
circumstances, integration with link layers or IPsec VPN technology is
not under consideration -- because that would require a forklift upgrade.
For example, the wireless hotspot case where something more sophisticated
than a Web portal is needed, but a forklift upgrade to WPA2 or a VPN
deployment isn't a realistic alternative. Or the shared wired media case
where "network port authentication" doesn't really work, and wholesale
switch port replacements aren't affordable. In both of those cases, EAP
over IP might provide a light weight, easily deployed solution.
Yet, rather than focusing on the specific scenarios in which PANA might
be compelling, the PANA framework document tries to cover a wide
range of potential uses, trying to position PANA for use in scenarios
where the case is less obvious.
Ietf mailing list