RE: Issue 226: RFC 3576bis and Renumbering

["Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" <[e-mail]>]

Alan DeKok <> allegedly scribbled on Sunday, May 20, 2007 5:53 AM:

> Bernard Aboba wrote:
>> The problem described in this issue is that a CoA-Request packet
>> cannot be used for renumbering.  This is because RFC 3576 defines the
>> Framed-IP-Address, Framed-IPv6-Prefix and Framed-Interface-Id
>> attributes as session identification attributes.
> 
>   Looking at issues & fixes, I'm not sure why we didn't require all
> NASes to generate a unique session ID in the Access-Request packet. 
> Once that's done, the session can be identified by that ID, rather
> than by an ad-hoc collection of network identifiers that are
> protocol-specific.  
> 

Me, neither: I've been advocating just that for several years now
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zorn-radius-logoff-09.txt).
The proposal has been essentially ignored, however, so I expect that
I'll be submitting it to the RFC Editor as an individual submission
shortly.

>> I'd like to put forward a potential approach to address this concern,
>> which is to introduce two new attributes, User-IPv4-Address and
>> User-IPv6-Address, in order to identify a session by IP address. 
>> This would allow the Framed-IP-Address, Framed-IPv6-Prefix,
>> Framed-Interface-Id and Delegated-IPv6-Address attributes to be
>> included for the purpose of renumbering.
> 
>   If the NAS is sending Acct-Session-Id, why not just use that to
> identify the session?  If the NAS isn't sending it (or isn't sending
> accounting packets at all), then the proposal above already suggests
> changing the NAS behavior.  Why not just require sending
> Acct-Session-Id in all Access-Requests?    
> 
>   If that is unacceptable, then your proposal seems reasonable.  But
> I'm wary of adding duplicate attributes for niche solutions. 
> 
>   Alan DeKok.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [e-mail] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>