[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
6rd attribute compromise?
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, Sanchez, Mauricio (HP Networking) wrote:
3. RADIUS Attributes for 6rd, Sheng Jiang
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-6rd-radius-attrib
- Bernard asks how many IPv4 address can be included? And how do you
know how many are there? Response: can know counted based on the
length. Bernard comments that AVP are typically fixed length, this
request is a dynamic length. Other question is can we have many of these
attributes?
- Nancy asks on clarify on fixed length vs. dynamic length. Bernard
clarifies that there are two ways to do this, but one issue is how to
map the 6rd prefix.
- Alan says can do this through extended attributes.
- Bernard comments that itʼs a question of timing.
- Nancy says that would build a dependency on the extended attributes.
- Alan and Bernard agrees.
As a compromise any thoughts about defining stand-ins for what are
essentially TLVs to remove external dependencies?
Upside future implementations supporting TLVs *may* be able to more
broadly support the 6rd configuration attribute.
Downside at least 7 more bytes for this attribute, more work to manage
additional static fields.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | SubType (1) | SubLen (3) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4MaskLen | SubType (2) | SubLen (20) | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 6rdPrefixLen | 6rdPrefix
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SubType (3) | SubLen (6) |6rdBRIPv4Address
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
regards,
Peter