Re: Comments on reliable accounting draft (was RE: StrawmanRADIUSEXT WG charter - Take Two)

[Richard Perlman <perl@lucent.com>]

Bernard, two short comments...

Richard

On 8/25/03 4:14 PM, "Bernard Aboba" <aboba@internaut.com> wrote:

> One problem with a "ping" based on existing RADIUS functionality is that
> it too could be proxied.  So if the goal is to get an idea of the health
> of the next hop, then this doesn't help.  Heartbeat appears to me to
> be one of those things that is intrinsically done better in Diameter --
> with its TCP/SCTP transport, non-proxiable heartbeats, etc.

In the case of a RADIUS "ping,"  a "good" result would certainly always be
true, while a "bad" result might be false (because it was delayed/lost in
proxy, etc.).  So, if the goal is to determine if a server is available,
there might still be some value to this.  Of course, you could also specify
that a "ping" request MUST not be forwarded (but that may extend the scope
of the WG beyond what is reasonable and sensible).
 
>> The draft also makes a couple of assumptions that are novel, at least to
>> me.  Is it true that RADIUS clients regularly choose proxies based upon
>> NAI or some other piece of authentication data?
> 
> I've never seen this, but perhaps someone else has.

I have seen several requests from service providers for this "feature," but
I don't know if any client vendors actually implement it.  However, it seems
that the concept behind RADIUS is to provide a centralized AAA service and
placing routing intelligence in the client would seem to defeat that idea.


--
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/>