Re: -01 version of Chargeable User Identity

[Bernard Aboba <aboba@internaut.com>]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, Greg Weber wrote:

> > Overhead is not the issue -- the null CUI attribute will only require 2
> > octets.
>
> The overhead is a potential issue if we are introducing
> a precedent that might be followed by many attributes
> in the future.  The current suggestion seems to be that
> _every_ Access-Request contain this advertisement (cf once
> per NAS which might be more reflective of capability).

I think your point about overhead is well taken.  It's one thing to do
this in a single case (CUI); it's another thing to set a precedent to be
replicated again and again, on every RADIUS Access-Request.

Diameter can avoid this via capabilities negotiation (CER/CEA), but since
RADIUS has no such feature, what do we do?

Are you suggesting that the RADIUS server keep state on NAS capabilities,
by presumably mapping NAS-Identifer/NAS-IP-Address/NAS-IPv6-Address
attributes to various negotiated capabilities?

--
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/>