[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Dime] [AAA-DOCTORS] RADIUS / Diameter compatibilityboilerplate?
Hi Dave,
There isn't too much space left in the <255 ID space and hence that
consideration might not be too relevant in the future.
I would not restrict the possibility to allocate RADIUS attributes (for
example from the extended attribute space) in a Diameter document or todo
Diameter AVP code allocation in a RADIUS document.
The problem is that a more detailed investigation about this subject will
take some time. Do you have that time?
Ciao
Hannes
>-----Original Message-----
>From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On
>Behalf Of Dave Nelson
>Sent: 10 January, 2009 16:18
>To: aaa-doctors@ietf.org; dime@ietf.org; radiusext@ops.ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [Dime] [AAA-DOCTORS] RADIUS / Diameter
>compatibilityboilerplate?
>
>Hi Hannes,
>
>I've added RADEXT to the distribution, as well.
>
>I agree, based on your summary of the state of the art of
>translation gateways and the other issues you highlight, that
>the simple Diameter Considerations text that we've been using,
>modeled after the assumptions of the Diameter NAS Application
>(RFC 4005), is a bit misleading.
>
>If the recommendation turns out to be that there should not be
>simplistic RADIUS to Diameter interoperability, then I think
>there are two follow up
>issues:
>
>(1) Guidance on when Diameter clients and servers can and
>cannot use (or
>re-use) RADIUS attributes in the legacy <255 ID space.
>
>(2) A prohibition on Diameter documents defining and new AVPs
>in the legacy
><255 ID space.
>
>I think there was an assumption that any attributes/AVPs in
>the legacy ID space would be interchangeable, is a simple fashion.
>
>Regards,
>
>Dave
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On
>Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
>Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 9:03 AM
>To: 'David B. Nelson'; Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
>Cc: aaa-doctors@ietf.org; dime@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [Dime] [AAA-DOCTORS] RADIUS / Diameter
>compatibilityboilerplate?
>
>Hi Dave,
>
>Thanks for the reminder.
>
>Based on the discussion we had with Pasi in context of the
>MIPv6 integrated document I tried to figure out how far we are
>with the deployment of RADIUS
>- Diameter translation agents.
>
>I got feedback, which I will try to summarize (as mentioned in
>my recent DIME status update message).
>
>Why does that activity relate to the issue of the boilerplate?
>We are writing something in our documents with a certain model
>of interworking in mind. For some reason, this interworking
>does not exist in today's deployment (based on the feedback I
>received) and so far I haven't received evidence that it will
>exist in the future.
>
>So, here is my thinking:
>
>* RADIUS and Diameter are different protocols with different
>deployment stories.
>
>* The data types in RADIUS and Diameter are different. There
>is overlap but RADIUS offers fewer data types than Diameter.
>
>* The design considerations in Diameter are different to the
>one in RADIUS.
>A big difference is the fact that Diameter has the concept of
>applications and RADIUS doesn't have those (ignoring some tiny
>details).
>
>The above-mentioned aspect might lead to different designs in
>RADIUS and in Diameter when considering the deployment
>environment and the available protocol mechanisms.
>
>This makes translation more complex. Since there is very
>little translation done (other with legacy systems) this does
>not really matter that much.
>
>This makes me believe that there should not be a requirement
>to write RADIUS Diameter consideration sections in the document.
>
>If document authors want to include Diameter solution aspects
>into the same document then they can obviously do that. This
>is a pure document management task. However, they have to
>consider the entire range of Diameter design considerations
>and this may lead to the need to define a Diameter application
>and hence the previously short section might be rather long.
>
>In any case, a WGLC should be posted to the DIME mailing list
>if there are Diameter considerations in the document.
>
>Does this make sense? Feedback from the DIME group?
>
>Ciao
>Hannes
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: aaa-doctors-bounces@ietf.org
>>[mailto:aaa-doctors-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David B. Nelson
>>Sent: 08 January, 2009 17:59
>>To: 'Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)'
>>Cc: aaa-doctors@ietf.org
>>Subject: [AAA-DOCTORS] RADIUS / Diameter compatibility boilerplate?
>>
>>Hi Hannes,
>>
>>During the AAA Doctors lunch at IETF-73 you volunteered for
>the action
>>item of drafting some boilerplate / template text for the required
>>Diameter Considerations section of RADIUS I-Ds and RFCs. How is that
>>coming along?
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>DiME mailing list
>DiME@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>
--
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/>