RE: The RADIUS attribute space: an assessment

["Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" <gwz@cisco.com>]

aland@nitros9.org <mailto:aland@nitros9.org> supposedly scribbled:

> "Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" <gwz@cisco.com> wrote:
>> So you're saying that it is not possible to extend FreeRADIUS to
>> support Diameter in the way that I suggest?
> 
>   Are you really that insistent on alienating everyone?

???

> 
>   I note that you addressed none of my cost/benefit analysis for why
> administrators aren't deploying Diameter, 

Actually, I thought that I had, by suggesting how to extend a RADIUS server w/one new feature (Diameter).  That way administrators don't _have_ to do anything new, but they _can_.  What's so alienating about that?

> and why NAS vendors aren't
> implementing it, either.  Instead, your main concern appears to be
> that the world doesn't meet your ideal of who "deserves" to be in
> business.    
> 
>> Who funds FreeRADIUS?
> 
>   No one.
> 
>   Hard as that is to believe, coming from a "only commercial vendors
> deserve to exist" mindset, 

You misinterpret my statement: what I meant is that Diameter doesn't need to show up on a user interface at all, except for an option to enable it, & further, if a vendor (commercial or otherwise) can't figure out how to make something like that basically transparent unless enabled, they shouldn't be in business (or in a different business - say, hospitality or food service).

> there has been *zero* funding of the
> project from day one.  Not a single cent.  Ever.  

OK, so I'm wondering why I (or Cisco or anyone else) needs to 'fund a Diameter implementation with lots of features'...

> 
>> For years now, the most common questions I've heard from SP customers
>> has been a variation on "What's happening with Diameter?  Is it the
>> wave of the future or a dead-end?  Is the IETF supporting it or
>> not?", all of which boil down to "Should we start thinking about
>> migrating from RADIUS?".  Of course, the only answer I can give is
>> "I don't know".  It appears that in your world the waffling of the
>> IESG has had no effect upon this market confusion.
> 
>   It's strange.  I don't hear complaints from customers that the IESG
> is blocking Diameter.  Instead, I hear that Diameter doesn't add
> anything of value for them.  

Why not?  Because they don't need the features or because this WG is busy hacking Diameter into RADIUS?

> Maybe that's why they're not deploying
> it?   
> 
>   Or, I hear that the equipment vendors aren't implementing it.  Or,
> I hear that no adequate Diameter server exists.  Would that affect
> the customers decision to deploy it? 

Here's a thought: back up a bit & ask why equipment vendors aren't implementing it.  Is it just a bad idea?  OK, I would accept that except for the fact that you seem to be hell-bent on reproducing a Frankenstein version of it by patching RADIUS. 

> 
>   Hey, don't *you* work for a large networking company?  Why don't
> you push them into implementing Diameter in their equipment, and
> implementing a replacement for ACS?  Wouldn't that be spectacular!  

Hmm.  I could have sworn that (according to you) the main problem was that there are no open-source servers; isn't that your department?

> 
>   Alan DeKok.

Hope this helps,

~gwz

Why is it that most of the world's problems can't be solved by simply
  listening to John Coltrane? -- Henry Gabriel

--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>