Re: Issue: Vendor Specifc Attribute Values

[Ignacio Goyret <igoyret@lucent.com>]

At 00:46 8/3/2005 -0400, Alan DeKok wrote:
>Ignacio Goyret <igoyret@lucent.com> wrote:
>> The method described in RFC2882 was used by one vendor and it works so long
>> as the bottom 16-bits of the vendor-id is not repeated, something that was
>> true then but it hasn't been for a long time.
>
>  I'm not sure why you think 2^16 was passed a long time ago.

You are correct. Sorry for the confusion. Please, ignore that part of my comments.

>> My impression is that if assignment of new values was easier, the need for
>> VSEs would tend to disappear. As it stands, it is a process that takes a
>> good year at least.
>
>  There will *always* be a need for people to define site-local VSA's
>and VSE's.  Without a standard method of doing so, they will choose
>methods that destroy protocol interoperability.

Yes, of course, there must be a well defined method to the madness.
I'm not arguing against VSAs or VSEs.

My point was that the main reason d'etre for VSAs and VSEs is the very long
process to get new numbers. If that process could be sped up somehow (without
detrimental of the protocol, of course), I'm positive it would reduce the
current massive need for VSAs and VSEs.


--
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/>