RFC 2486: The Network Access Identifier
This RFC has been replaced. Do not implement against it for new work — it was formally obsoleted by RFC 4282.
Current document in this lineage: RFC 7542 — The Network Access Identifier
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document proposes syntax for the Network Access Identifier (NAI), the userID submitted by the client during PPP authentication. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC2486
- Published
- January 1999
- Authors
- B. Aboba; M. Beadles
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- ops
- Pages
- 8
- Also known as
- —
- Obsoleted by:
- RFC 4282
Topics
Standards lineage
This document is one revision in a chain of 3 RFCs, each formally replacing the one before it.
- RFC 2486 (1999)
- RFC 4282 (2005)
- RFC 7542 (2015) ✓
Referenced by
One later RFC formally updates or obsoletes part of this document.
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 2185Routing Aspects of IPv6 TransitionCurrent
September 1997
- RFC 5729Clarifications on the Routing of Diameter Requests Based on the Username and the RealmCurrent
December 2009
- RFC 2794Mobile IP Network Access Identifier Extension for IPv4Current
March 2000
- RFC 3422Forwarding Media Access Control (MAC) Frames over Multiple Access Protocol over Synchronous Optical Network/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (MAPOS)Current
November 2002
- RFC 3519Mobile IP Traversal of Network Address Translation (NAT) DevicesCurrent
May 2003
- RFC 3846Mobile IPv4 Extension for Carrying Network Access IdentifiersCurrent
June 2004
- RFC 4284Identity Selection Hints for the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)Current
January 2006
- RFC 7600IPv4 Residual Deployment via IPv6 - A Stateless Solution (4rd)Current
July 2015
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?