Re: -01 version of Chargeable User Identity

[Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com>]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 06:58:46AM -0700, Adrangi, Farid wrote:
> Thanks for your comments.   RADIUS does not support a generic capability advertisement.  However in this draft,  we can say that the NAS MUST send the CUI attribute with a nul value in the Access-Request, if it supports the attribute.  This indicates the home RADIUS server whether or not the NAS support CUI.  Will this address your concern?

Since an old server that does not support CUI is quite likely to respond
with Reject to a request with an attribute that it does not understand,
this is not likely to solve all interoperability problems.

On the other hand, 
> 	From: Lothar Reith [mailto:lothar.reith@nortelnetworks.com] 
> 	I beleive it is not acceptable for the Home-Radius to find out only when receiving the RADIUS Accounting Start Request Message (i.e. after the fact of admitting the user) that he does not have a chargeable-identity for the currently already ongoing usage  - and therefore can not charge for that usage.

A server that expects to see the accounting requests can always use Class
to communicate whatever information it likes back to itself.  CUI seems
intended to solve the cases where the servers for access and accounting
are run by different organizations that cannot manage to negotiate an
agreed format for Class.  While that is perhaps a real case, it is NOT
acceptable to impose retroactive requirements on existing devices that
are now RADIUS compliant.  One would need a much stronger reason to
disenfranchise the installed base; only a major break could justify it.

-- 
Barney Wolff         http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf
I'm available by contract or FT, in the NYC metro area or via the 'Net.

--
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/>