[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference irocz::common_brouters

Title:Digital Brouters Conference
Notice:New common-code brouter family: RouteAbout, DECswitch 900
Moderator:MARVIN::HARTLL
Created:Mon Jul 17 1995
Last Modified:Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:929
Total number of notes:3736

793.0. "PPP using CHAP authentication" by TAGEIN::AURAND () Tue Mar 11 1997 13:44

Hi,

I setup a PPP connection to Ascend Router (over ISDN) using CHAP authentication
(like the one mentioned in 734.*).

Entry 734.9 says the following:
    
>    Given this, you are right. If you do not want the ASCEND router to
>    supply its ID and Password, then use "set lcp options" to set 
>    authentication to none.  Use "set authentication local pap" to define
>    the ID and Password which the RouteAbout will use to identify itself to
>    the ASCEND router.
 
Using CHAP I must 'local' and 'remote' because I had to use "set authentication
remote chap" to define the ID and Password which the RouteAbout will use to 
identify itself to other router.

Is this a bug or feature ?  At least it is very confusing to use the 'same'
parameters in two different ways.

	Best regards

		Andreas
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
793.1exitIROCZ::PARTRIDGETue Mar 11 1997 15:3813
    PAP and CHAP operate somewhat similar. PAP will send the password over
    the net in the clear. Whereas CHAP will not. The process is a challenge
    and reply exchange. One node challenging the other, the reply being
    the password or secret PAP or CHAP. Both side needing to know what 
    the password or secret is to verify authenticity. Ergo you could set
    it up one of two ways. Both sides with the local and remote ID's,
    along with the Passwords or secrets. Or
    
    With the server set up to authenticate, so that clients calling in
    must know the server's id and secret/password.
    
    Bob
    
793.2ConfusedTAGEIN::AURANDWed Mar 12 1997 09:3910
    >> PAP and CHAP operate somewhat similar. PAP will send the password over
    >> the net in the clear. Whereas CHAP will not.
    
    But why is the the LOCAL ID/LOCAL PASSWORD parameter used under PAP to
    send the authentication information to the other side, whereas under
    CHAP I must set the REMOTE ID/REMOTE PASSWORD to send the information.
    
    	Many thanks for your help
    
    		Andreas
793.3For example ..KEEF::PETERSWed Mar 12 1997 10:1433
    Andreas,
    
    The documentation for V2 is confusing on this point and I am rewriting
    it for V3.
    
    If you consider two routers - Station A and Station B trying to set up
    a call with authentication in one direction only, enabled on Station A:
                                         
    With PAP, if Station A requests authentication,  Station B responds
    with its LOCAL ID/PASSWORD.  Station A will compare these values with
    its REMOTE ID/PASSWORD, and if they are the same the call will be
    accepted.  This means that if you enable PAP authentication on one
    router, it is up to the other router to reply with its local
    password/id.                                   
    
    With CHAP,  if Station A requires authentication it sends an
    authentication challenge to Station B, which builds a response based
    on its REMOTE ID/PASSWORD.  Station A verifies this response
    by comparing it with the results it gets from its LOCAL ID/PASSWORD. 
    
    You can see that PAP and CHAP use the LOCAL/REMOTE ID and Password
    differently.  Another difference is that the ID and PASSWORD are
    encrypted for CHAP, but are sent clear for PAP.
    
    The PAP authentication procedure is only run when the call is being set
    up, but with CHAP authentication challenges may be sent out
    periodically.  The end result is that CHAP provides a more secure
    verification than PAP.
    
    I hope this explanation helps.
    
    	Steve Peters
    	DRS Technical Writer. 
793.4TAGAUS::AURANDWed Mar 12 1997 12:025
    Hi Steve,
    
    many thanks for your explanation. The confusion has disappeared :-).
    
    	Andreas