RE: Consensus Call on RADEXT WG re-charter

[Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glen Zorn [mailto:glenzorn@comcast.net]
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 1:35 AM
> To: Avi Lior
> Cc: Bernard_Aboba@hotmail.com; radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Consensus Call on RADEXT WG re-charter
>
> owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org <> scribbled on Wednesday, April
> 16, 2008 11:20 PM:
>
> > There is a very interesting thing happening here with the notion of
> > adding a new transport to RADIUS: specifically TCP/TLS transport to
> > RADIUS.
> >
> > In recent experiences in other SDOs people were concerned about the
> > scalability of Diameter.  Specifically, in the hot arena of Femto
> > Cells and Diameter, people were wondering how a diameter
> server would
> > maintain 100,000 plus connections with the femtos.  This
> without using
> > multiple servers.
> >
> > So here we are thinking about perhaps introducing a UDP
> transport or
> > something equivalent for the Diameter server -- at least for that
> > first hop between the femto cell in your home and the
> operator's site.
> >
> > Perhaps the right approach for these protocols is to allow them to
> > utilize the correct transport for the job at hand.
> > Having no choice is seemingly problematic.
>
> Good point.  On that note, it seems that RadSec (as currently
> specified) creates one new option but eliminates another.
> Would it be worthwhile defining RADIUS over TCP, & then how
> to use TLS to protect it?

Yes.

--
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/>