Re: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-radext-fixes

[Alan DeKok <aland@nitros9.org>]

Glen Zorn (gwz) wrote:
>> Not enforcing the monotonic requirement means that servers would need
>> to keep a cache of recently used Identifiers for each NAS IP/UDP. 

  Yes.  This is what RADIUS servers do.  The text in Section 2.2.2 of
the "fixes" document was added after a previous discussion on the RADEXT
list.  The consensus at that time was that mandating a cache was useful,
and reflected existing practices.

> Only if we assume that a) there is no capabilities exchange between
> clients & servers or b) that RADIUS servers have virtually no
> intelligence.  If a server noticed that every single identifier coming
> from a given client was 1 greater than the last over an hour or so,
> couldn't it reasonably assume that the client was behaving in the
> recommended fashion & process that client's requests in the more
> efficient manner?

  As opposed to caching packets keyed by (source IP, source port, Id)
for no more than 30 seconds?

  You're proposing keeping long-lived state to track Identifiers as a
way to avoid keeping short-lived state to track Identifiers.  It's an
novell idea, but I don't see the benefit.

  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/>