[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Last call on extensions document?
I also support the notion of having a "family-specific" attribute set.
My reasons are somewhat different.
In the case of carrying a "pure" IPv6 address and a pure IPv4 address then
the argument for having a single attribute to carry both makes sense.
However, IPv6 addresses have different flavours. Sometime I want to carry
a "pure" IPv6 address, sometimes I want to convey just the prefix and
sometimes I want to convey the prefix and the interface and thus I need to
include the prefix length in the address. There are examples of these
encodings already in the IETF.
A family-specific approach is good. Thus if we want to create such a
beast for IPv6 addresses we should create an attribute that can meet all
the use cases or have an attribute type for each use case.
On 11-08-04 20:52 , "Alan DeKok" <email@example.com> wrote:
>Peter Deacon wrote:
>> In most cases where an attribute of type IP Address needs to be defined
>> there will be a need for an IPv6 analogue of that same attribute.
>> There are implementation costs and operational costs associated with the
>> approach of segregating address families. Costs can be reduced somewhat
>> with a ComboIP (Payload Len 4 = IPv4, 16 = IPv6) data type.
>> 1. Multiple attributes need to be defined.
> With 1000+ new attributes and TLVs, I'm not sure this is an issue.
>> 2. Operators entering an IP Address into fields need to make sure they
>> select the correct attribute based on the address family they are
> That's a UI problem. The system in which they enter the IP should
>know (a) the address family, and (b) the relevant attribute. There's no
>reason to force the admin to make those choices.
>> Operators may enter a hostname and have the system enter the resolved
>> address. In this case the operator may have no knowledge of the address
>> family or it may change tomorrow!
> Which is a disaster for maintainable systems. Having the RADIUS
>response change because of modifications to DNS is terrible. I strongly
>oppose that kind of setup.
>> The system will need to provide additional intelligence during the name
>> lookup process to select the proper attribute based on address family
>> for each instance.
> It can send multiple attributes. Foo-IPv4, Foo-IPv6, Foo-IPv4, etc.
> Why select? If the DNS lookup provides 2 IPv4s, and 1 IPv6, why not
>send that in RADIUS?
>> We can live without however much like gigawords I believe with the new
>> attribute space comes some opportunity to improve the standard framework
>> for future attributes.
> Of course.
> While adding "combo IP" seems OK for WiMAX, I'm not convinced that the
>above use-cases *require* it. The same result can be achieved with
> Alan DeKok.
>to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with
>the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.