[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Strawman RADIUSEXT WG charter - Take Two
> > - RADIUS UDP transport profile. The transport behavior of the RADIUS
> > protocol is unspecified in RFC 2865 and 2866. This has resulted in
> > implementations lacking support for congestion control.
> Is there evidence that this 'lack' is a fatal flaw?
There are cases where after a power failure or large scale reboot of
many NASes, overly aggressive RADIUS clients have swamped the
> > - Pre-paid support. Pre-paid services are contemplated in a number
> > of potential applications, including wireless LAN access and IP
> > telephony. In order to enable support of pre-paid services in an
> > interoperable way, a specification is required. The implementation
> > of RADIUS prepaid needs to be compatible with RFC 2865 and 2866,
> I doubt very much that this is possible, given that pre-paid support
> would undoubtedly use the capabilities defined (sort of) in RFC 3576 and
> magically justified after the fact by RFC 3575 (unless, of course, we're
> redefining "compatible" to mean "in direct violation of")...
We could change this to "compatible with existing RADIUS RFCs."
> > as well as with Diameter prepaid capabilities.
> Who cares?
I think that there is a desire to potentially gateway between RADIUS
prepaid clients and a Diameter prepaid server, no?
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.