Adding email from Avi describing expected usage of this new attributes. From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sanchez, Mauricio (HP Networking) At this time we find ourselves with a mixed result between the in room sentiment at IETF 80 (which was negative to allocation) and the subsequent consensus poll (which was neutral/positive to allocation). As such, a final consensus poll is warranted to establish rough consensus in either direction. Please respond to this email by May 24, 2011 with either a ‘yes’ (indicating allocation should occur) or a ‘no’ (indicating allocation should be denied). Please respond regardless of whether you commented at IETF 80 or to the below consensus poll. Thanks, Mauricio From: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sanchez, Mauricio (HP Networking) During IETF 80 one of the agenda topics discussed was whether to approve a request received by IANA for allocation of additional NAS-port-type values relating to Wimax as described below Type of Assignment : TBD for WIMAX- LBS : WiMAX location based service The snippet of meeting notes relating to this topic are show below: ---- <meeting note snippet begin>--------------------------- Request for registration for NAS-port-type. Under 3575, falls under expert review. This request is for NAS-port-type relating to WiMax - Stefan comments that there’s already type for WiFi so not sure why another one is needed, just one. - Klaas comments that agrees with Stefan’s comments. - Nancy comments that looking at the current assignment is that there is only 1 allocation per mode. - Bernard takes the general comment of only allocating one as the response to take back to the request. Given consensus here, will verify that opinion in the reflector. ---- <meeting note snippet end>--------------------------- The sentiment in the room was clearly against approving this IANA request and at this time we would like to confirm this on the mailing list. Please respond to this email and state whether you are in favor or against approving this IANA request. Thanks, MS |
--- Begin Message ---
- To: "bernard_aboba@hotmail.com" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
- Subject: [IANA #409959] Genreral Request for Assignements
- From: Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:39:35 +0000
- Cc: "radiusext@ops.ietf.org" <radiusext@ops.ietf.org>, Alper Yegin <alper.yegin@yegin.org>
- Thread-index: AcvjN/PfETWqJsnhRbCJ3Q5584NJVA==
- Thread-topic: [IANA #409959] Genreral Request for Assignements
Thank you for the review of the NAS-Port-Type IANA request for assignment. In a previous email you were seeking answers to the following questions:Bernard wrote:
Can someone answer the following questions?
1. What is different between WiMAX WiFi and normal IEEE 802.11? We already have a number of IEEE 802.11 NAS-Port-types allocated and have proposed additional data for this.
2. Why do DHCP and a location service need NAS-Port-Type values?
3. Why should we just allocate a generic WiMAX NAS-Port and let additional data be included in a WiMAX Forum VSA?
The general answer to your question is as follows:
For a given session, the WIMAX AAA Server interacts with many different WiMAX network elements and also non-WiMAX network elements. The approach taken by WiMAX is to have an explicit indication from the NAS as to the context of the RADIUS access-request. The NAS-Port-Type is viewed as the attribute to provide that information.
WRT 1) the WiMAX AAA needs to be able to differentiate between a normal WiFi Access and a WiMAX NAS which is an a WiFI-WiMAX IWK NAS which has additional behaviours over and above the "normal" wifi AP. T
WRT 2) Again, WiMAX AAA needs to differentiate between the request from both these entities because the AAA behaviour is different when request comes from a DHCP server vs., a Location Based Server.
WRT 3) WiMAX would just be inventing our own NAS-Port-Type attribute. We thought the idea is that we reuse attributes when we can. Since there doesn't seem to be a lack of number space associated with NAS-Port-Type there doesn't seem to be a reason to invent our own attribute.
-- Avi Lior--Bridgewater Systems
--- End Message ---