[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: New Technical Issues RE: WG last call in progress on VLAN/Priority Draft
> This WGs very existence, how reluctantly it was started, is
> testament that people rather build upon RADIUS than look at
> DIAMETER for their solutions.
I am sorry you don't get it!!!
It's not that we rather build upon RADIUS. We live in a commercial
world that requires us to build upon RADIUS. We are not given a choice.
We have paying customers who invested millions of dollars each in their
RADIUS infrastructure and they don't want it to go away (yet).
> I find it then entirely foolish to suggest that a blanket
> transport mechanism for DIAMETER inside RADIUS would solve
> all our issues.
Given the evidence I have seen, the Diameter encoding will work.
Take away the 'M' and 'P' bits because I don't think those make sense
Any shortcomings should be addressable -- unless of course the IETF
decides to get in the way as they do with RADIUS.
> I find it incomprehensible that the DIAMETER format would not
> need any evaluation against the alternatives on the merits,
> but that people can just wave their hands and say, there's
> already some diameter parsing code in many RADIUS server's
> that support TTLS in some form or other, so hey, 'tis the
> only sensible road ahead.
If you want to transition from RADIUS to Diameter why not get the
attributes aligned -- it will make the cut over a lot easier.
> Really, is that all we can muster these days?
I havent seen any better approach so I guess -- yes.
I am sorry that makes you sad.
> E-Advies - Emile van Bergen email@example.com
> tel. +31 (0)78 6136282 http://www.e-advies.nl
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.