RE: alternatives for carrying eap lower layer information

["Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com>]

Jari Writes...

> The crucial question is whether the RFC 2868 attributes can
> be used for this purpose or if new ones are needed because
> the mandatory tunneling vs. incoming usage collides. Opinions?

Is the potential for confusion because one might have *both* an incoming
tunnel service (potentially terminating at the NAS) and an outgoing
tunnel service for the same connection?  Re-use of attributes seems OK
to me as long as the semantics are the same (or at least analogous) and
the context of interpretation is unambiguous.  If there is the potential
for confusion, it would be preferable to have a distinct attribute.

-- Dave



--
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/>