[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: RADEXT WG last call on RADIUS attributes for IPv6 Access Networks
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Wojciech Dec (wdec) wrote:
If the /128 prefix approach is used should I expect that an
IP would be assigned to the end user?
Just don't want existing stuff to become broken :(
Precisely that's the reason for having the new attribute as opposed to
overloading the previous one for the case when the full /128 is to be
passed down instead of a /64 (or less) for use in SLAAC. Having the two
separated ensures that existing stuff doesn't get broken.
Up until the point where the draft is accepted, how would someone have
assigned or accounted for a single IPv6 address?
From my read of RFC 3162 there is no mention of an underlying technology
association with Framed-IPv6-Prefix - be it SLAAC/ND, DHCPv6 or a future
technology yet to exist.
Given the design of IPv6 is a shift to assignment and identification via
prefix it seems reasonable /128 prefixes would already be used in this way
at the very least in accounting messages for sessions or sub-sessions
involving individual hosts.
Paradoxically I like the idea of the new attribute...
Ideas:
Make IPv6-Framed-Address valid for authentication only.
Relabel the attribute (ie IPv6-Framed-DHCP-Address)
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/>