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

Re: Review of draft-ietf-radext-vlan-02.txt

Hi Mauricio,
After the discussion I had with Bernard I thought that I understood the purpose and it was reasonable to me. 
Here is a short summary of our discussion:
The User-Priority-Table is sent the Access-Accept and provides the mapping of the user priorities for each class. Semantically it provides something similar to DSCP remarking. The User-Priority-Table therefore does not need to be associated with data traffic (e.g., a particular 5 tuple). It just maps one priority value to another one and that's fine. 
The User-Priority-Table attribute relates to a particular port and since 
there is a one-to-one relationship between a port and a user it also 
relates to the user. This is the reason why this attribute is carried in 
RADIUS in the first place.

Ciao
Hannes

 Sanchez, Mauricio (ProCurve) wrote:

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. User-Priority-Table does only
affect the port-based priority settings and is not enforced on a
per-user or per-session basis.

MS



-----Original Message-----

From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 1:07 AM

To: Hannes Tschofenig

Cc: Sanchez, Mauricio (ProCurve); Bernard Aboba; 
radiusext@ops.ietf.org

Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-radext-vlan-02.txt

Hi Mauricio,


another issue that came to my mind again was raised during 
the discussion with Bernard is that the User-Priority-Table 
is used for remapping of user priorities only according to 
the User Priority Regeneration table. The conclusion of our 
discussion was that your draft does not aim to attemp to 
associate the actual data traffic with the QoS classes.

Ciao
Hannes

Hannes Tschofenig wrote:


Hi Mauricio,

thanks for responding to this issue. Please find my response below:



your new text proposal looks much better.

You need to modify Section 3 as well:

"
Access-   Access-  Access-  Access-    CoA-
 Request   Accept   Reject   Challenge  Req    #   Attribute

   0        0-1      0        0         0-1   TBD  


User-Priority-Table



"



Got it.   BTW, do you think that *any* of the attributes are 
appropriate for inclusion in an Accounting-Request?




An argument to allow these attributes in an 

Accounting-Request is for


forensic purposes.  The accounting server is already aggregating a
number of session characteristics (packet/byte counts) and allowing

attributes from the vlan draft would shed additional light 

on the what


specific services the user was consuming/using at a given 

point in time.


Assume that you carry the User-Priority-Table within 

Accounting-Request 


messages. Do you think that it provides information how 

many packets are 


carried for each individual QoS class? Where is the 

information that 


offers me the following info:
- # packets/bytes for user priority 0
....
- # packets/bytes for user priority 7

Ciao
Hannes



Cheers,
MS






--
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/>