Re: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mitton-diameter-radius-vsas-00.txt

["Alan DeKok" <aland@ox.org>]

"Glen Zorn (gwz)" <gwz@cisco.com> wrote:
> That's the point: if you have an application that RADIUS can't support,
> you must transition to Diameter.

  Agreed.

  Practically, though, there are major pushes behind minor additions
to RADIUS.  It's not just the deployed base, it's the ease of making
minor tweaks to RADIUS implementations versus adding a brand new
protocol.  That appears to be the rationale behind RADEXT.

> How can you solve it w/o either changing the RADIUS packet format or
> transport?

  Additional rounds of Access-Request/Access-Challenge may work.  I
could see it being implemented in RADIUS with only minor changes to
the protocol and existing implementations.

  I'm not trying to push multiple extensions to RADIUS, I'm just
seeing if there's a more general way of satisfying the Diameter
interoperability requirements.

  Alan DeKok.

--
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/>