RE: Comments on draft-adrangi-radius-extension-for-pwlan-00.txt

["Adrangi, Farid" <farid.adrangi@intel.com>]

Hi Jari,
Thanks.  Please see my replies in line.
BR,
Farid

> > [FA] There are two aspects to this feature.  One is to enable Access
> > Network
> > to advertise its capability about private or public address 
> assignment
> > for a
> > given WLAN client, and to enable the home RADIUS server to 
> specify the
> > desired
> > address type option.  The other is how the Access Network 
> is going to
> > enforce
> > the specified address type option (private or public 
> address) when the
> > client 
> > does a DHCP request - which IMO, this is outside the scope of the
> > document and 
> > perhaps we should be more explicit about it.  Which aspect of the
> > feature do 
> > you have problem with? [FA]
> 
> 1) Presumably, lack of indication about the address type from the
> home network would be taken as either type being acceptable? If
> yes, public+private option may not be necessary.
> 
[FA] The lack of indication about the address type from the home 
network would most likely be taken as private address assignment
(i.e., the default option).  

> 2) If you were to *enforce* the selection from the home network,
> then public+private option would not work.
> 

[FA] Why wouldn't work? Sorry, I think I am missing your point 
here. The home network specifies the preferred address type only 
if it sees the Advertisement in the access-request indicating that
the access network can either assign public or private address to
a given WLAN client that is trying to connect. [FA]

> 3) I get a bit worried that lack of enforcement is going to
> cause problems. Is it a general approach for AAA attributes
> from the home server to be hints?
[FA] I would not consider this as a hint, rather a explicit request.
Because, this enforcement attribute is in response to the advertisement
in the access-request. Please note that the enforcement attribute should

not be sent if the advertisement attribute is not present. [FA]

> Is someone's billing going
> to be based on a public or private address being provided?

[FA] Most likely, Yes.  [FA]
> Or is this simply a result of backwards compatibility i.e.
> we do not wish to disable access from NASes that do not
> yet support these new attributes?

> 
> 
> --Jari
> 
> 
> 

--
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/>