Network Access Server Requirements Working Group Meeting 17-July-1999, 45th IETF, Oslo, Norway Chaired by Dave Mitton, Mark Beadles. Reported by Nicole Gallant. Edited by Dave Mitton. Chairs: Dave Mitton (absent) Mark Beadles AGENDA: Agenda bashing Charter and Document Status Document discussions: - "NAS Operational Model" (Draft-ietf-nasreq-nasmodel-00.txt) - "Extended Radius Practices" (Draft-ietf-nasreq-ext-radiuspract-00.txt) - "Criteria for Evaluating NAS Protocols" (Draft-ietf-nasreq-criteria-01.txt) Activities in related working groups: AAA, Roamops, RSVP, PPPext (Mobile IP) Next Steps Interim meeting plans Status: It was announced that our email archive is finally online and running. Thanks Alex! DOCUMENT DISCUSSIONS ====================== Discussion of The NAS Operational Model Document ------------------------------------------------ This document is informational. It provides a basic overview of what a NAS is and what a NAS does. There have been few comments on this document from the mailing list. This document consists of two pieces. The first piece is a set of examples with respect to configuration, and types of authentication. After these examples, the second piece sets out terminology and some structure of what a NAS is composed. A NAS offers services which are authorized and controlled by authentication. This draft is a combination of two drafts presented at prior meetings. Questions from the floor: NONE Discussion of the Extended Radius Practices Document ------------------------------------- This is another informational document; it contains examples of some types of functions outside of RADIUS but clearly within the scope of NAS functions. It was presented at the previous meeting. This is the first draft availible to the WG. Questions from the floor: NONE Discussion of the Criteria for Evaluating NAS Protocols Document -------------------------------------- Purpose of this document is to start evaluating approaches for future work. This being a first pass, it was felt there could be more material added. Dave Mitton presented slides based on Mark Beadle's Criteria for Evaluating NAS Protocols document. Questions from the floor on the presentation: Q> On the general service requirements - Are we talking about load balancing or thousands of calls for signaling? A> This is aimed at the Service Profile of the NAS Q> Not load balancing on the telephone network. This should be captured and addressed. A> These slides are abstracted from Mark's document - his paragraphs should make more sense but lets review them to make sure. Q> On Authorization requirements, isn't a location check the same as caller ID? A> A location is the same as a POP (Point of presence) - this is one of the things that a server could support if reported by the NAS. Q> What about reporting failures from the NAS to an AAA server? A> It is assumed that any server type functionality is reported! Q> Can we come to a group conclusion whether there are only three A's (from the AAA WG - Accounting, Authorization, and Authentication), or four A's (The fourth A is for Auditing)? There was the supposition that Auditing is not sufficently different than Accounting to warrant seperate treatment. It was decided that this could not be settled in the meeting, we need to gather together information from people who insist these are different. PRESENTATION - "IPv6 Tunnel Server Requirements", Marc Blanchet =============================================================== Mark presented slides showing how they were developing a tunnel server that provided IPv6 connectivity through an IPv4 "backbone". The purpose of the presentation was to see if this application met or required changes in our NAS Models. Q> Why would you use a tunnel server when you could just do a IPv6 to IPv4 translation? A> That's under discussion Comment> The best way is to use translation - we don't want to tell people to do tunnels. Being a tunnel server have a big impact on the NAS performance. A NAS is engineered with distributed processing networks in mind, not for ending tunnels. Comment> This looks more to me like a firewall! A NAS, historically does not bridge two IP networks Q> Do you have a (IETF) draft in for this? A> Yes, We're gonna look also if RADIUS includes similar functions Q> We don't have a model for ending tunnels - only starting tunnels! A> RADIUS has attributes for this.. The Tunnel server becomes a virtual NAS Q> Our tunnel servers are NASes? A> We don't want to push this as a requirement. Q> This is just another remodeling of WEBDAC Q> How does the authentication work? Q> How is the tunnel server different from a router? Q> Are you considering RSIP? A> No! You use RSIP OR IPv6toIPv4! Q> Mobile IP works fine, too! Q> Is the tunnel server a NAS? CONCLUSION: We will continue to discuss this issue of IPv6 Tunnel Server Requirements for a NAS on the mailing list. Activities in Related Working Groups ========================== Comments from the chair (Dave Mitton) that NASREQ needs to follow developments in related working groups, such as RADIUS, AAA, and Roamops. General agreement from the floor. The Interim Meeting ============== The chairs propose an interim meeting to progress the Criteria document and start on the Recommendiations document, probably to be held in mid or late August, most likely somewhere in the midwest of the U.S.A. Our esteemed AD requested that we give ample prior notice for any that wished to attend be able to schedule travel and accomodations. The purpose of holding an interim meeting would be make progress against our scheduled milestones. Mailing list contributions have not been sufficent to achieve this. As an alternative suggestion, some people would prefer to hold teleconference(s) rather than have to travel to an actual meeting. The chair asked for show of hands, on those willing to travel and didn't get much response. CONCLUSION: A request for an interim meeting or teleconference be sent out on the mailing list. Next Steps: ============ The groups Chartered Milestones were projected directly off the IETF web page. Some transcription problems were found. The next work item(s) to complete are 1) to review and finalize the Criteria document 2) to start and put out for review our Recommendations document. A request for volunteers to edit the Recommendations draft was put to the audience and Glen Zorn of Microsoft responded.