Re: l2tp as ipsra solution

["CHINNA N.R. PELLACURU" <pcn@xxxxxxxxx>]

I totally agree. I have already pointed out that, there could be
legitimate reasons for customers using a low level of security, and thus
the WG should not force a standard that mandates the highest level of
security at all times.

    chinna

On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Daniel Fox wrote:

> Chinna,
> 
> There are plenty of security conscious organizations that use PAP or CHAP.  PAP is
> historical, but is still in widespread use.  CHAP is an active IETF protocol that
> needs to be supported.  The cost of SecureID on a per-user basis far exceeds the
> cost of a VPN, equipment and all.  These security conscious customers (using PAP
> or CHAP) are willing to pay the extra cost of a VPN for the extra security it
> provides, but the management cost of migrating to PKI all at once is a bitter
> pill.
> 
> Our charter specifically mentions username/password as a legacy authentication
> mechanism that needs to be supported.  I see no reason to change the charter.
> 
> "CHINNA N.R. PELLACURU" wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > This is the kind of authentiction mechanisms, that *all* (atleast *all*
> > security consious customers) are using currently. I don't think any
> > security consious customer is using PAP or CHAP. I think these protocols
> > are provided in the litrature for completeness (or from a historic
> > perspective).
> >
> 

chinna narasimha reddy pellacuru
s/w engineer