[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[radext] #71: Section 2.3 and 3.3
#71: Section 2.3 and 3.3
RFC 3162 Section 2.5 defines the Framed-IPv6-Route Attribute whose purpose
is as follows:
This Attribute provides routing information to be configured for
the user on the NAS. It is used in the Access-Accept packet and
can appear multiple times.
It would appear that this existing attribute has a similar purpose to the
Route-IPv6-Information Attribute discussed in Section 2.3 and defined in
Section 3.3, although the formats are different.
Rather than explaining the difference between the Framed-IPv6-Prefix
attribute and the Route-IPv6-Information Attribute in Section 2.3, my
suggestion is to focus on the difference between the Framed-IPv6-Route
attribute and the Route-IPv6-Information attribute, if there is in fact a
difference.
In general, the only reason to have two attributes with similar purposes
would be if the attributes might not to be included simultaneously for
different purposes. In this particular case, it is not clear to me
whether this could happen. For example, would there be a situation where
one set of routes might be announced via RIPng/OSPFv6 and another set
would be announced via RA?
--
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Reporter: bernard_aboba@â | Owner: wdec@â
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: milestone1
Component: ipv6-access | Version: 1.0
Severity: In WG Last Call | Keywords:
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/71>
radext <http://tools.ietf.org/radext/>
--
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/>