RE: RFC 3576bis and Session State

["Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" <gwz@cisco.com>]

David B. Nelson <> allegedly scribbled on Friday, May 25, 2007 8:25 AM:

...

> 
> 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?

3578 just brought the situation to a boil: RADIUS was being used
(arguably inappropriately) for lots of other thing that really required
the knowledge of a session; limiting the number of simultaneous sessions
by a single user leaps to mind...

> 
> 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.  

The major problems are that a) RADIUS accounting isn't designed for
dynamic session management either, b) you are requiring the
implementation & deployment of accounting even if all it's used for is
session management and last but certainly not least, c) this kind of
stuff belongs in RADIUS, not a kluge.

> 
> 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/>