Re: L2 NAS-Filter-Rule syntax choices

[Bernard Aboba <aboba@internaut.com>]

> The belief is the current proposal covers all bases and is still usable,
> but perhaps specifies more than many NAS devices could actually
> implement or are interested in supporting.

Question: how do you know whether a particular NAS device supports all of
the syntax covered in the NAS-Filter-Rule?  For example, a layer 2 switch
might only support layer 2 filters, or a NAS might only support layer 3
filters.  A unified syntax makes sense, but allowing layer 2 and layer 3
filters to be included in one attribute implies that devices have to
implement both layer 2 and layer 3 filters.  If a device only supports
part of the syntax, there is no easy way for it to advertise that.

Or is support for both layer 2 and layer 3 filtering common enough at this
point that we don't need to worry about this?

--
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/>