[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Issue 196: User-Name Attribute
- To: "Bernard Aboba" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
- Subject: RE: Issue 196: User-Name Attribute
- From: "Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" <gwz@cisco.com>
- Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 12:34:26 -0700
- Authentication-results: sj-dkim-4.cisco.com; header.From=gwz@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; );
- Cc: <radiusext@ops.ietf.org>
- Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=862; t=1149449667; x=1150313667; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=gwz@cisco.com; z=From:=22Glen=20Zorn=20\(gwz\)=22=20<gwz@cisco.com> |Subject:RE=3A=20Issue=20196=3A=20User-Name=20Attribute; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3DE+UT+eR2CF3wfzNhZIKzbkkksNk=3D; b=Lli70fTG/TnuKqvp5lJMXt+jzLstekFz+hn3nO5zcGgCuOEbFtscU9YLLp54jr8iMQxtxT1v hJyI9PYmTbnWYkVkTbVZ/88HqRUihVjBREDlfKD0HpQJoy5UuOCBpCZ+;
Bernard Aboba <> supposedly scribbled:
>> Right, but it's my understanding (laboriously gained, yet perhaps
>> still flawed) that the SIP proxy >functionality was expected to
>> deliver the SIP request to the destination realm; if the user has no
>> >account in that realm, they are simply out of luck. This would
>> seem to imply that RADIUS proxies >are unnecessary, at least insofar
>> as inter-realm routing is concerned.
>
> That might be correct, but it is still possible for proxies to be
> deployed within the destination realm, no?
>
I suppose so, but it seems like their purpose would be other than routing (except in a non-NAI-specific fashion like load-balancing).
...
Hope this helps,
~gwz
Why is it that most of the world's problems can't be solved by simply
listening to John Coltrane? -- Henry Gabriel
--
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/>