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

Re: Request for NAS-Port-Type Allocation

To: "Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net>, "Bernard Aboba" <aboba@internaut.com>, radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Request for NAS-Port-Type Allocation
From: "Claudio Lapidus" <clapidus@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 11:16:16 -0300
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=mSpTdKuYrY1bm/it88EFTOdO1GY4KvrLql3gYoEasYw/B8Ve9/VTWyQujnc9/Il3Ln 7i28WfCKNCc90du5pu1ktWLT9CILmsLAFL9RRDCO+E1m7VsH1Qmrgw/3xKVtoO5WxWXb +0rQDdqNPbLlB6PH+wss44GdhXF4kGxMAPNDY=
In-reply-to: <006601c8f915$f4055a00$dc100e00$@net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0808010108130.3452@internaut.com> <006601c8f915$f4055a00$dc100e00$@net>

On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 2:16 AM, Glen Zorn <glenzorn@comcast.net> wrote:
> what is the
> rationale behind such careful rationing of the 4 billion (!) NAS-Port-Type
> values again?

Hmm, perhaps is it that every new value will need to be properly
understood by all existing implementations, which in turn will need to
be retrofitted to handle it?

regards,
cl.

--
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:
- Request for NAS-Port-Type Allocation
  - From: Bernard Aboba <aboba@internaut.com>
- RE: Request for NAS-Port-Type Allocation
  - From: "Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net>

Prev by Date: RE: Request for NAS-Port-Type Allocation
Next by Date: RE: Request for NAS-Port-Type Allocation
Previous by thread: RE: Request for NAS-Port-Type Allocation
Next by thread: RE: Request for NAS-Port-Type Allocation
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread