Re: Consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request

[Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>]

See inline...

-- Avi Lior
--Bridgewater Systems






On 13-04-11 13:27 , "Dave Nelson" <dnelson@elbrys.com> wrote:

>On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 6:43 AM, Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>
>wrote:
>
>> The finest granularity is the "Port" or the connection or the service
>>the
>> is being authenticated/authorized.
>
>Yes.  Do you envision a situation where a single NAS would report an a
>802.11 port type on one connection ans a WiMAX-802.11 port type on
>another connection?

Actually yes.  Imagine if you will a web server that is authenticating
users for WiFi and one that is authenticating user for something else.

My point is that if I only worry about the "ports" instead of the NAS,  I
couldn't possibly fall into a "trap" later on.  The trap being the
assumption that a NAS is homogeneous.

The question then becomes what benefit(s) do I get for treating the NAS as
a homogeneous set of ports.


> Or would the NAS only report various combinations
>of WiMAX specific connections?
>
>> In any case, the NAS-Port-Type is good enough.
>
>Yeah, a lot of things we do with RADIUS are "good enough", even if
>they are not completely correct, in terms of a coherent
>object-oriented data model.  I'm not endorsing that behavior, just
>taking note of it.



>
>Regards,
>
>Dave
>
>David B. Nelson
>Sr. Software Architect
>Elbrys Networks, Inc.
>www.elbrys.com
>+1.603.570.2636


--
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/>