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

Re: Consensus Call on RADEXT WG re-charter



Hi,

> Right.  While I think the RADSEC folks indicate they have some client
> implementations, my impression of the work is that its more useful
> between the first-hop proxy and the home server.
>
> For the RADESC folks: Is there any reason that the first-hop proxy
> couldn't terminate a RADIUS (RADIUS over UDP) session with the NAS and
> originate a RADSEC (RADIUS over TLS/TCP) session with the up-stream
> proxies or home server?

That's perfectly possible. In fact, we had planned to deploy it exactly for 
the server-to-server use case. 
It just happened that the use case of "APs in weird environments" *also* 
showed up, and there was additional merit in having client gear that speaks 
RadSec itself.

There is nothing that stops one from having RADIUS client gear and a RadSec 
server behind because the conversion is lossless.
This is what happens for my own country deployment in the Luxembourg TLD: 
upstream connection to the European root is via RadSec, while the connected 
institutions use plain RADIUS to talk to the TLD server.

Greetings,

Stefan Winter

-- 
Stefan WINTER

Stiftung RESTENA - Réseau Téléinformatique de l'Education Nationale et de 
la Recherche
Ingenieur Forschung & Entwicklung

6, rue Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi
L-1359 Luxembourg
E-Mail: stefan.winter@restena.lu     Tel.:     +352 424409-1
http://www.restena.lu                Fax:      +352 422473

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.