RE: RADEXT WG last call on RADIUS attributes for IPv6 Access Networks

["Wojciech Dec (wdec)" <wdec@cisco.com>]

> 
> > Given the above examples/reasons, would you still see a need to 
> > restrict the use/naming of the attribute as suggested. What is your 
> > concern with the proposed use?
> 
> None WRT assignment/auth, thank you.
> 
> My suggestion WRT an accounting restriction is based on a scenario:
> 
> Accounting system relies on RFC 3162 to report client IP.
> 
> NAS decides to send IPv6-Framed-Address rather than RFC 3162 method.
> Accounting system requires modification to continue to 
> understand the same information.

Yes, I see your point. Don't you think however that this could be
handled by a client knob/implementation? I.E. If in an access-accept a
server sends the IPv6-Framed-Address, then the NAS client can interpret
it to mean that its ok to use this attribute in accounting messages. If
an IPv6-Framed-Address does not come down in an access-accept, then the
NAS would use by default "whatever it uses today", unless it has been
explicitly configured to send accounting info with using
IPv6-Framed-Address.
This would seem to cover your concerns. What do you think?

-Woj.

> 
> 
> From an accounting perspective specific to any one NAS with a known 
> behavior use of IPv6-Framed-Address can certainly simplify matters.
> 
> Globally it can have the opposite effect as an additional 
> attribute/RFC 
> possibly needs to be consulted to figure out the users 
> IP..especially in 
> instances where NAS are not under direct administrative control.
> 
> 
> Perhaps another way to resolve is to make a SHOULD/MAY 
> recommendation to 
> also send Framed-IPv6-Prefix/128 for accounting.  
> Realistically IMHO its 
> still early WRT IPv6 deployment and not likely to be a big 
> deal either 
> way.
> 
> regards,
> Peter
> 

--
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/>