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

Re: RFC 3576bis Question: DAC and RADIUS server not co-located

To: Glen Zorn <glenzorn@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: RFC 3576bis Question: DAC and RADIUS server not co-located
From: Alan DeKok <aland@nitros9.org>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 10:52:43 +0200
Cc: 'Bernard Aboba' <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, radiusext@ops.ietf.org
In-reply-to: <009101c80336$e1a89be0$a4f9d3a0$@net>
References: <BAY117-F331E71161D3871342CA39793B20@phx.gbl> <009101c80336$e1a89be0$a4f9d3a0$@net>
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.13 (X11/20070824)

Glen Zorn wrote:
> I have always assumed that "DAC" was just another name for "RADIUS server",
> i.e., the same entity acting in two different roles.

  Normally, yes.  However, there are conceivably deployments where they
are separate machines.  We should have recommendations for those situations.

  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/>

References:
- RFC 3576bis Question: DAC and RADIUS server not co-located
  - From: "Bernard Aboba" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
- RE: RFC 3576bis Question: DAC and RADIUS server not co-located
  - From: "Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net>

Prev by Date: RE: RFC 3576bis Question: DAC and RADIUS server not co-located
Next by Date: Re: RFC 3576bis Question: DAC and RADIUS server not co-located
Previous by thread: RE: RFC 3576bis Question: DAC and RADIUS server not co-located
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread