From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ben_gal@libero.it Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:04:37 +0000 Subject: Re: Client requesting its authentication Message-Id: <20050224220437.GA2445@ytsejam> List-Id: References: <20050224162619.GB5787@ytsejam> In-Reply-To: <20050224162619.GB5787@ytsejam> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 01:27:54PM -0800, Bill Unruh wrote: > Then demand that they authenticate themselves to you via eap. If that is > what you want then demand it. Why are you trying to force them into > demanding it from you? " I want you to do something. But I do not want to > ask you to do it, I want to force you to ask me to do it". That is not how > the world works. If you want something, ask for it. I don't want to *force* the peer to authenticate me. I want to *hint* him. If he doesn't want that, I close because that doesn't satisfy me. This seems not so strange to me. > > > >This is the behaviour I were looking for: > > Sorry, the behaviour you want is that the two sides never agree on anything > and refuse to talk to each other? Is more desiderable that they don't connect than a client connecting to an untrusted server without authentication > Well demand that it authenticate itself to you via eap. In tls there's a client and a server. Roles cannot be swapped > > That is the other sides perfect right. If someone walked up to you and > demanded that you demand to see his driver's license, don;t you think a > valid reaction on your part is to walk away? Yes. This isn't a problem. The problem is when I trust him, but we haven't shown driver licenses each other.