Re: Final call for consensus poll for IANA #409959 NAS-Port-Type value request

[Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>]

Alper Yegin wrote:
> Historically, the NAS-port-type is associated with the L1/L2 port over
> which the âaccessâ service is provided. But with the new use of RADIUS,
> this view is no longer applicable.

  I'm not sure how the second sentence follows from the first.

> Again, consider a Mobile IP Home
> Agent node implementing RADIUS client for AAAing the MNâs registration
> requests. The L1/L2 port that receives the MN registration request has
> no significance, and it can be one of many types. Here, our thinking is,
> the âlogicalâ port is the âMobile IP Home Agentâ, and that has nothing
> to do with the L1/L2 port.

  Then how do we refer to the L1/L2 port?  Or is it even relevant?

  RFC 2865 says:

      An Access-Request SHOULD contain a NAS-Port or NAS-Port-Type
      attribute or both unless the type of access being requested does
      not involve a port or the NAS does not distinguish among its
      ports.

  So if the service being offered (Mobile IP) does not involve a port,
then the *standard* RADIUS solution is to not use NAS-Port-Type.
Instead, something else can be used.  Possibly Service-Type, or maybe
another attribute.

  This has been done for ~15 years with administrative logins.  The
administative login request contains "Service-Type = Administrative",
and often *no* NAS-Port-Type.

  Alan DeKok.

--
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/>