IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Review of draft-ietf-radext-status-server-05 (Part II)

"Bernard Aboba" <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Thu, 25 February 2010 17:52 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FD213A84FE for <ietfarch-radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:52:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.963
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.963 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.468, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 7DSMPbYNei61 for <ietfarch-radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:52:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F9D93A84A3 for <radext-archive-IeZ9sae2@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:52:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org>) id 1Nkhq5-000Aw0-Qd for radiusext-data0@psg.com; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:49:29 +0000
Received: from [65.55.111.171] (helo=blu0-omc4-s32.blu0.hotmail.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>) id 1Nkhq1-000AvZ-6q for radiusext@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:49:25 +0000
Received: from BLU137-DS7 ([65.55.111.135]) by blu0-omc4-s32.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:49:24 -0800
X-Originating-IP: [131.107.0.77]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU137-DS7D5C366B3876B0A69BC8693400@phx.gbl>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: 'Alan DeKok' <aland@deployingradius.com>
CC: 'Ignacio Goyret' <i.goyret@alcatel-lucent.com>, radiusext@ops.ietf.org
References: <BLU137-W6861B435730E1D4BA388293520@phx.gbl> <4B7AB10C.5030800@deployingradius.com> <201002242136.o1OLaSc0017148@cliff.eng.ascend.com> <4B85A2D5.2020906@deployingradius.com> <BLU137-DS451546B1E94A9DAD9779993410@phx.gbl> <4B86197B.20906@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B86197B.20906@deployingradius.com>
Subject: RE: Review of draft-ietf-radext-status-server-05 (Part II)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:49:23 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Acq15EzZkptTkcTyQP+SHbQKdpv3PgAXiJRg
Content-Language: en-us
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Feb 2010 17:49:24.0264 (UTC) FILETIME=[DE07F280:01CAB642]
Sender: owner-radiusext@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <radiusext.ops.ietf.org>

Alan said:

"  Say a NAS has two paths to realm FOO.  It can ask each one; can *you*
reach FOO?  The one that answers "yes" has packets sent to it.

  The Status-Server isn't being forwarded.  But the NAS still finds out
the proxies view of the reachability of realm FOO."


[BA] The effectiveness of this will depend on the definition of
"reachability" in this context. For example, does a "yes" mean:

1. "Proxy has realm FOO in its routing table"  OR
2. "Proxy got a response from realm FOO in the last X seconds" OR
3. "Proxy tested reachability to realm FOO as a result of receiving
Status-Server with a realm request and got a response"


--
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/>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email