Re: The RADIUS attribute space: an assessment

["Alan DeKok" <aland@nitros9.org>]

"Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" <gwz@cisco.com> wrote:
> So you're saying that it is not possible to extend FreeRADIUS to support
> Diameter in the way that I suggest? 

  Are you really that insistent on alienating everyone?

  I note that you addressed none of my cost/benefit analysis for why
administrators aren't deploying Diameter, and why NAS vendors aren't
implementing it, either.  Instead, your main concern appears to be
that the world doesn't meet your ideal of who "deserves" to be in
business.

> Who funds FreeRADIUS?

  No one.

  Hard as that is to believe, coming from a "only commercial vendors
deserve to exist" mindset, there has been *zero* funding of the
project from day one.  Not a single cent.  Ever.

> For years now, the most common questions I've heard from SP customers
> has been a variation on "What's happening with Diameter?  Is it the wave
> of the future or a dead-end?  Is the IETF supporting it or not?", all of
> which boil down to "Should we start thinking about migrating from
> RADIUS?".  Of course, the only answer I can give is "I don't know".  It
> appears that in your world the waffling of the IESG has had no effect
> upon this market confusion.

  It's strange.  I don't hear complaints from customers that the IESG
is blocking Diameter.  Instead, I hear that Diameter doesn't add
anything of value for them.  Maybe that's why they're not deploying it?

  Or, I hear that the equipment vendors aren't implementing it.  Or, I
hear that no adequate Diameter server exists.  Would that affect the
customers decision to deploy it?

  Hey, don't *you* work for a large networking company?  Why don't you
push them into implementing Diameter in their equipment, and
implementing a replacement for ACS?  Wouldn't that be spectacular!

  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/>