RE: Meaning of "backward compatible" WAS RE: Consensus Call on RADEXT WG re-charter

["David B. Nelson" <dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com>]

Stefan Winter writes...

> Well, if an implementation would do RadSec exclusively, and NOT 
> listen on UDP/1812 as well, then yes, RADIUS clients would not be
> able to communicate with that implementation.
> 
> Reality however is that all the implementations so far can do
> both, UDP/1812 and RadSec on TCP/2083, and are able to translate 
> between both. Such implementations *are* interoperable with existing
> RADIUS clients.

So one of the elements of our backwards compatibility definition might be
that any implementation (server or proxy) of RADIUS over a non-UDP transport
that will be used to directly service a NAS MUST additionally implement a
"RADIUS Classic" UDP/1812 listener.



--
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/>