RFC 3576bis and Session State

["David B. Nelson" <dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com>]

Glen Zorn writes..

> I really think it's been painfully obvious for some time (at least 
> since the publication of RFC 3576) that RADIUS servers are no longer
> the nice, stateless things they were presumed to be by RFC 2865...

I certainly agree that RFC 3576 radically changed the RADIUS architecture.

> ...and that RADIUS servers need a way to keep track of user sessions
> _outside_ of accounting.

One can certainly make the argument that implementations of RFC 3576 would
benefit from this feature.

> Since both the RADIUS server and client have to change to
> support your suggestion, it would be really cool if we could actually
> _solve_ that problem here instead of just applying YABA, don't you
> think?

So the problem that you see is the need for RADIUS authentication and
authorization servers that implement RFC 3576 to maintain NAS session state?
Is that right?

What would be wrong with requiring Dynamic RADIUS servers to be co-resident
with RADIUS Accounting servers?  They're already a different beast, as
you've explained.

BTW, I've taken the novel action of changing the subject line to more
accurately reflect where this discussion is going.


--
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/>