Re: Glen's proposal for Attribute Extension

["Alan DeKok" <aland@nitros9.org>]

"Bernard Aboba" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> wrote:

>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>            Vendor-Id (cont)           | Extended type |    Length2    |
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       |    Data...
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

  This doesn't solve the length problem, even if the extended types
are allowed to span multiple VSA's.  The attribute lengths are still
limited to 253 bytes of data.

  And I'm a little leery of yet another 8-bit type field.  I know the
8 bits in the current space aren't exhausted, and they've been
sufficient for a decade.  A 16-bit type would have little additional
impact on the packet length, but would make attribute allocation much
more open.

  Alan DeKok.

--
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/>