RE: RADEXT WG last call on RADIUS attributes for IPv6 Access Networks

["Wojciech Dec (wdec)" <wdec@cisco.com>]

Hello Peter,

As part of the resolution of Issue 335, we're proposing the addition of
the following text/section into the draft. Please let us know if this is
satisfactory.

"Syntactically, the Framed-IPv6-Address and the RFC3162
Framed-IPv6-Prefix attributes are identical. In terms of their intended
semantics however the former represents a statefully assigned IPv6
address while the latter a prefix intended for application on a target
interface and are envisaged to be used in co-existence. Thus, in order
to preserve this semantical distinction it is recommended that each
attribute be used for its intended purpose, with the functional
substitution of one attribute for the other being an optional
configuration feature of a Radius client."

Thanks,
Woj.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Deacon [mailto:peterd@iea-software.com]
> Sent: 03 March 2010 21:19
> To: Wojciech Dec (wdec)
> Cc: radiusext@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: RADEXT WG last call on RADIUS attributes for IPv6 Access
> Networks
> 
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Wojciech Dec (wdec) wrote:
> 
> >> My suggestion WRT an accounting restriction is based on a scenario:
> >> Accounting system relies on RFC 3162 to report client IP.
> 
> >> NAS decides to send IPv6-Framed-Address rather than RFC 3162
method.
> >> Accounting system requires modification to continue to
> >> understand the same information.
> 
> > Yes, I see your point. Don't you think however that this could be
> > handled by a client knob/implementation? I.E. If in an access-accept
> a
> > server sends the IPv6-Framed-Address, then the NAS client can
> interpret
> > it to mean that its ok to use this attribute in accounting messages.
> If
> 
> > an IPv6-Framed-Address does not come down in an access-accept, then
> the
> > NAS would use by default "whatever it uses today", unless it has
been
> > explicitly configured to send accounting info with using
> > IPv6-Framed-Address.
> 
> > This would seem to cover your concerns. What do you think?
> 
> Yes, sounds reasonable.
> 
> 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/>