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

RE: [IANA #46166] Request for allocation of NAS-Port-Type values



 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
> Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 3:49 PM
> To: aland@nitros9.org
> Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [IANA #46166] Request for allocation of 
> NAS-Port-Type values
> 
> RFC 4603 explicitly requested an allocation of values 30-34, 

We started at 30 just to leave some open space in case
anything was allocated between when we implemented &
when we standardized, not because 27-29 were used.

Greg

> which makes me 
> wonder whether a vendor isn't already using 27-29.
> 
> 
> >From: "Alan DeKok" <aland@nitros9.org>
> >To: "Bernard Aboba" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
> >CC: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> >Subject: Re: [IANA #46166] Request for allocation of 
> NAS-Port-Type values 
> >Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 14:28:39 -0500
> >
> >"Bernard Aboba" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Is there any existing usage of values 27-29?
> >
> >   Not that I can see.
> >
> >   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/>
> 

--
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/>