more on WORTH READING more on worth reading "A Piece of the Action"

["David Farber" <dave () farber net>]

-----Original Message-----
From: pi.20.stripes () antichef com [mailto:pi.20.stripes () antichef com] 
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 1:33 PM
To: dave () farber net
Cc: Louis A. Mamakos
Subject: Re: [IP] WORTH READING more on worth reading "A Piece of the
Action"

[...]
> We wanted to enable competitive and wholesale opportunities for ISP  
> access here as well; UUNET had been tremendously successful  
> building a wholesale V.90 dial-up access network, and we wanted to  
> enable that same capability here.  The key to making this work was  
> enable the ability to delegate the authentication for the customer  
> wanting access; with PPP we did this at UUNET by inventing the  
> RADIUS proxy and forwarding the authentication requests to our  
> third-party wholesale customers by a simple syntactic examination  
> of the principle name being authenticated (e.g., UU/louie or  
> louie () UU NET or louie () MSN COM.  We never did UU!louie which would  
> have been a great inside joke!)        [...]

FYI, this part isn't 100% accurate.  I'm fairly sure that when I  
wrote UUNET's RADIUS proxy there was at least one other existing  
RADIUS proxy.  Both of the realm formats "REALM/user" and  
"user@REALM" were documented as being in use outside of UUNET (and  
UUNET's proxy only did the "REALM/user" for a few years).

What UUNET (well a UUNET employee, specifically me) did invent is the  
RADIUS Proxy-State attribute.  I think the only difference between  
what I invented to fit UUNETs needs and what eventually made it into  
the RFC is they used 33 as the attribute number and I used something  
like 147 or so.

As for all the PPPoE stuff, I was there too (doing the interim hack  
that tided us over until PPPoE was ready), and agree with Louie.   
PPPoE has a lot of flexibility that never got used.  I think partly  
because the flat rate thing caught on, so there was no real need for  
a single home to have two ISPs on one DSL line, and partly because  
some of the things it solved NAT boxes also "solved" (I want my  
printer shared on my local network, but not so much to the internet  
as a whole).  We also did truly think path MTU discovery would work,  
and unlike the people who made the ethernet VLAN spec we didn't have  
the ability to increase the size of the ethernet frame.
-- 
Josh Osborne
The opinions stated above (and below) do not necessarily reflect  
those of my employer



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/