Talk:Network Admission Control

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force.

Merge from Network Access Control

I think that the two of these should be merged. If not merged, then the Network Access Control needs to at least be cleaned up. Also, a change should be made one the Network Access Control to not point to this page as a synonym. Earcaraxe 20:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear on the differences between Network Access Control and this page. Since Network Access Control seems to have a number of problems (it currently has an {{unsourced}} and {{context}}), I'm suggesting cleaning up and merging Network Access Control into this page, Network Admission Control.

I vote that NAC and NAC not merge... Network Admission Control is Cisco-centric and is discreet from Network Access Control, which is generic. Think "Kleenex" and "Tissue" with a requirement for technical accuracy.

I vote that Network Access Control and Network Admission Control are not the same. Network Access control is about an endpoint on the network, while Network Admission Control is about the endpoint getting access to the network. Very different. Only a Cisco bigot would want the two to be merge and not understand the difference.

Yes they should be merged, or perhaps renamed, NAAC. While there is a difference between Access and Admission, the customer is demanding that applications that are responsible for this functionality be capable of doing both. This is similar to what happened with the SIM (i=information), SIM (i=incident), SEM markets....now SI/EM).

So does this mean that glue and nails will also be merged? Customers demand applications do lots of things as one rather than multiple. Wikipedia is not about customer demand it is about knowledge. Keeping them separate with cross references shows the knowledge of the differences and enables greater understanding of the technology that is becoming pervasive in computers.

For those who maintain that the terms warrent separate articles, I ask you to please outline the differences so we can incorporate them into the articles. Currently I find that the articles do not provide enough information for a reader to understand the difference.--Ktdreyer 02:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to outline the reason for the two to be seperate is to quote directly from the article itself with assists info seekers in gaining knowledge without confusion -

"Network Access Control (NAC) aims to do exactly what the name implies: control access to a network. The term NAC is also sometimes used for Network Admission Control, which is focused on authenticating users and performing a posture check on the connecting device. The broader definition of NAC, as access control, includes pre-admission endpoint security policy checks and post-admission controls over where users can go on a network and what they can do."

Yes, Network Admission Control is a Cisco term. Network Access Control is the generic term. To differentiate them, many people use the acronyms C-NAC and NAC. No question, it's confusing. Some have tried to pioneer a new generic term but none have succeeded and most have given up. InteropLabs has a good series of papers on NAC at http://www.interop.com/newyork/event-highlights/interoplabs/ Stevehanna 21:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

problems=

Note that an hour ago I was unable to access the cia site, bandwidth shut down, 1 hr later I can access the cia site again. I was going to report a couple who has been stalking me somewhat, maybe. An ex but this is just a guess and if truly frightful, my parents arranged the whole thing, jus guessing, in either case would like for desunchronization of time if this is the issue that causes a couple to stalk. Not sure but if this can somehow cause terrorism or create terrorists, pls make these ppl cease and desist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.166.101 (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]