Re: Last call on extensions document?

[Peter Deacon <peterd@iea-software.com>]

On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Avi Lior wrote:

> I also support the notion of having a "family-specific" attribute set.

I'm sorry for any confusion.  The intent was never to "take away" any 
options that already exist.  I certainly am not suggesting any current 
attributes be changed in any way.

All I suggested is that a new "data type" be specified allowing single IP 
Addresses to be conveyed in either IPv4 or IPv6 address family.

It would be up to the designer of a new attribute to weigh the pros and 
cons and select the appropriate data type.  This would simply be another 
tool in the extensions toolbox at their disposal.

> My reasons are somewhat different.
> In the case of carrying a "pure" IPv6 address and a pure IPv4 address then
> the argument for having a single attribute to carry both makes sense.

My recommendation is limited to anything that would currently fit in the 
IPv4 or IPv6 address data types.

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/>