Re: [OPS-AREA] assumption about number of octets encoding PENs

Mark Ellison <ellison@ieee.org> Wed, 23 May 2012 15:13 UTC

Return-Path: <mark@ellisonsoftware.com>
X-Original-To: ops-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ops-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4352521F873A for <ops-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 May 2012 08:13:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.676
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.676 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANGLED_PENIS=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3Z1UNIR6X+VZ for <ops-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 May 2012 08:13:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A39BC21F8715 for <ops-area@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 May 2012 08:13:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbeh20 with SMTP id eh20so13808832obb.31 for <ops-area@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 May 2012 08:13:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=eJi13VIbTDx9P99TewsosizOKlCel6BaQhoyYanVE08=; b=o7DSRDOreJtwwCFsDwqE6ihCzp+GRjEaK0hGDs3EzcFM0WUJxVZWHzX7r4gDAFq7+F EDJ+3/y6ObGzlZinMCi+JxPNBwctCHYUFpX51vHAy9j7VGL58ZotndrM3KA78pQl1LxE gb13a2kYKoDDxwMOjIPQPG5/Je/tiVO0QHJoGr5XwobbXaJ/F9UVEG+ULwNSnrf/5/xf GwH39WsKFim5izTemojrcTTt3JR4IaYNYsK1sVlMGkrLfFXK05ktpHbnBTRm1+Xfgt1N QnY0DNffQTKR5qRs1WJHZB00Ukxpwn2CjnTuKT6T+ieebLerSHdH5Sz7rZWxdduFMcRP gHug==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.146.84 with SMTP id ta20mr17717966obb.19.1337786023042; Wed, 23 May 2012 08:13:43 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mark@ellisonsoftware.com
Received: by 10.182.111.2 with HTTP; Wed, 23 May 2012 08:13:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A04079D6FF0@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
References: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A04079D6FF0@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 11:13:43 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: FnEHwWWBLiPG_Vlzw8SsDXK1byc
Message-ID: <CABfCB8rVz2aCpA=n0UefYy3d2rR+6xbQr=U9DcOc-EANzPr0Bw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Ellison <ellison@ieee.org>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d0444ed0bb05e9a04c0b5945f"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlVKQ4qTwlPIiazSg5aIXE5NhVqrFJu3iwqxcepiDhhuPFTVWvHVKKeQdsEmjB7c/CJ+D+H
Cc: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, pearl.liang@icann.org, Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>, ops-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] assumption about number of octets encoding PENs
X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list <ops-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ops-area>, <mailto:ops-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ops-area>
List-Post: <mailto:ops-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ops-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area>, <mailto:ops-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 15:13:44 -0000

Dan,

Here is one reference point:

The SnmpEngineID TC as defined in RFC3411 reserves 4 octets for the PEN,
but then takes the high order bit for a different purpose.  This
essentially leaves 31 usable bits for a PEN within the SnmpEngineID.

Regards,

Mark

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
<dromasca@avaya.com>wrote:

> This is related to draft-liang-iana-pen-00 and
> draft-ietf-radext-radius-extensions-05.txt now in WGLC. The latest
> defines new Vendor-Id fields in a way consistent with RFC 2865, which
> used three octets. However, in draft-liang-iana-pen-00 we say that a PEN
> is a non-negative integer, which I think assumes (0..2**32-1) range.
>
> Questions:
>
> - is there any place where a limit is defined?
> - should we advice new documents to cautiously define 32 bits (at least)
> for Vendor-Id fields?
> - should we say something on this respect in draft-liang-iana-pen?
>
> What will happen to RFC 2865 implementations (and maybe other protocols)
> that assumed Vendor-Id is limited to three octets - this will probably
> need to be dealt by the RADEXT WG.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPS-AREA mailing list
> OPS-AREA@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area
>