[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RFC 2867/2868 question

To: Alper Yegin <alper.yegin@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: RFC 2867/2868 question
From: Bernard Aboba <aboba@internaut.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:33:09 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
In-reply-to: <088301c5a75e$c4f01540$6601a8c0@sisa.samsung.com>
References: <088301c5a75e$c4f01540$6601a8c0@sisa.samsung.com>

> I have a question though: It seems like we can use either RADIUS
> Access-Request/Answer, or RADIUS Accounting Request/Answer for setting
> up the compulsory tunnel. What is the rationale behind this
> "flexibility"? When would you recommend using one or the other?

I am not sure what "flexibility" you are talking about.  RADIUS Accounting 
is not an authentication/authorization mechanism, it is an accounting 
protocol.  RFC 2867 attributes are used to account for tunnel usage after 
they have been set up; the RFC 2868 attributes are used to authorize 
compulsory tunnels.  

--
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/>

Follow-Ups:
- Re: RFC 2867/2868 question
  - From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>

Prev by Date: Draft RADEXT WG Minutes from IETF-63
Next by Date: RE: [Isms] draft of ISMS charter
Previous by thread: Draft RADEXT WG Minutes from IETF-63
Next by thread: Re: RFC 2867/2868 question
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread