RE: çå: Q on Ver.-05 of draft-ietf-radext-ipv6-access after IETF81 radext session

[Leaf yeh <leaf.y.yeh@huawei.com>]

The original design of 'User-Type' defined in the section 4.1 of draft-yeh-radext-dual-stack-access-02 includes the differentiation between PPPoE & IPoE through different attribute-code-value. Though 'Address-Assignment-Type' sounds not have this differentiation, it is still fine to me. It does categorize the users by the prefix/address assignment, which is the most important part of the authorization. Could we have a better choice? Or 'Access-Address-Assignment-Type'?


Best Regards,
Leaf


-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Nelson [mailto:dnelson@elbrys.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 7:35 PM
To: Leaf yeh
Cc: David B. Nelson; radiusext@ops.ietf.org; draft-tan-v6ops-fast6-aaa@tools.ietf.org; Bernard Aboba
Subject: Re: çå: Q on Ver.-05 of draft-ietf-radext-ipv6-access after IETF81 radext session

> How about the replacement of 'Node-type' or 'Access-type'? Âor any other suggestion?

If the intent of this attribute is solely to control various types of
IP address and/or prefix assignment methods from a number of
pre-configured pools within the NAS, then I'd suggest something more
specific.  Perhaps 'Address-Assignment-Type'.  I wouldn't worry about
keeping it very short, and I wouldn't name it overly broadly, lest
future developers be tempted to conflate other NAS properties into the
same attribute.

Regards,

Dave

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