IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] WG adoption call for draft-zorn-dime-rfc4005bis-01

"Glen Zorn" <gwz@net-zen.net> Sun, 15 August 2010 10:03 UTC

Return-Path: <gwz@net-zen.net>
X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E49DB3A67A7 for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 03:03:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.026
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.026 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.573, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ongxu6qkt+z0 for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 03:03:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plsmtpa01-10.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa01-10.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.82.90]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id ACA323A6830 for <dime@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 03:03:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 25944 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2010 10:03:53 -0000
Received: from unknown (124.157.141.92) by p3plsmtpa01-10.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (72.167.82.90) with ESMTP; 15 Aug 2010 10:03:53 -0000
From: Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net>
To: 'Sebastien Decugis' <sdecugis@nict.go.jp>
References: <A0A5F8D2-62B7-40BF-A9C2-8ED231D6323E@gmail.com><4C5A5F2D.20508@nict.go.jp> <001c01cb346e$d7f9a460$87eced20$@net><4C5A6DA9.30309@nict.go.jp> <003201cb347a$0fb844a0$2f28cde0$@net> <4C5B65DB.3040006@nict.go.jp> <D109C8C97C15294495117745780657AE0CBB2CB1@ftrdmel1> <4C5BD20E.9080802@nict.go.jp> <004a01cb3562$34d91460$9e8b3d20$@net> <4C5F57A1.8090400@nict.go.jp>
In-Reply-To: <4C5F57A1.8090400@nict.go.jp>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 17:03:34 +0700
Organization: Network Zen
Message-ID: <001201cb3c61$21952d70$64bf8850$@net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Acs3YPb3zfvnW4drR46ZYmZS6N5UHwE/iUMg
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] WG adoption call for draft-zorn-dime-rfc4005bis-01
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 10:03:19 -0000

Sebastien Decugis [mailto:sdecugis@nict.go.jp] writes:

>  Hi,
> 
> >> Yes, my concern was about interconnecting different domains together,
> >> when some of the domains want to move to Diameter. In this situation,
> a
> >> translation mechanism is mandatory, I think.
> > Justification, please?
> Well, if domain A "speaks" only Diameter, I don't see how domain B who
> speaks RADIUS can interconnect, except with a translation mechanism.

If 'A' is the VAAA & 'B' is the HAAA, translation is impossible anyway
unless A respects the RADIUS rules WRT AVP & message length.  IIRC, though,
we're talking about the opposite case, where 'B' is the VAAA & 'A' is
transitioning from RADIUS to Diameter.  This implies that there _is_ a
RADIUS server in the 'A' realm (otherwise it would not be in transition) so
I fail to see why the RADIA approach wouldn't work...
  
> 
> Best regards,
> Sebastien.
> 
> 
> --
> Sebastien Decugis
> Research fellow
> Network Architecture Group
> NICT (nict.go.jp)
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email