Subject: [radext] #6: Review

From: "radext issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 22:18:38 -0000

#6: Review
-------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
 Reporter:  peterd@…                 |       Owner:  woj@…        
     Type:  defect                   |      Status:  new          
 Priority:  minor                    |   Milestone:  milestone1   
Component:  ipv6-access              |     Version:  1.0          
 Severity:  In WG Last Call          |    Keywords:               
-------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
 Date first submitted: March 1, 2010
 Reference: http://ops.ietf.org/lists/radiusext/2010/msg00227.html

 3.1.

 I'm confused on IPv6-Framed-Address and Framed-IPv6-Prefix from RFC 3162.
 It looks as if both attributes accomplish the same goal. Is there a
 difference between IPv6-Framed-Address and Framed-IPv6-Prefix of /128?
 [Bernard Aboba]

 > DHCPv6 is capable of assignment of both single addresses and prefixes.

 Delegation is addressed in RFC 4818.

 > If the /128 prefix approach is used should I expect that an IP would be
 assigned to the end user?

 You should not expect a DHCPv6 address to be assigned.  On some NASes I
 wouldn't expect *any* address to be assigned.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/6>
radext <http://tools.ietf.org/radext/>

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

---

From: "radext issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 02:04:32 -0000

#6: Review
-------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
 Reporter:  peterd@…                 |       Owner:  wdec@…        
     Type:  defect                   |      Status:  new           
 Priority:  minor                    |   Milestone:  milestone1    
Component:  ipv6-access              |     Version:  1.0           
 Severity:  In WG Last Call          |    Keywords:                
-------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
Changes (by bernard_aboba@…):

  * owner:  woj@… => wdec@…

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/6#comment:1>
radext <http://tools.ietf.org/radext/>

---

From: "radext issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 16:08:48 -0000

#6: Review
-------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
 Reporter:  peterd@…                 |        Owner:  wdec@…        
     Type:  defect                   |       Status:  closed        
 Priority:  minor                    |    Milestone:  milestone1    
Component:  ipv6-access              |      Version:  1.0           
 Severity:  In WG Last Call          |   Resolution:  fixed         
 Keywords:                           |  
-------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
Changes (by wdec@…):

  * status:  new => closed
  * resolution:  => fixed

Comment:

 Resolved in draft 01 section 3.5.

  RFC3162 Attribute coexistance

    Syntactically, the Framed-IPv6-Address and the [RFC3162] Framed-IPv6-
    Prefix attributes are identical.  In terms of their intended
    semantics, however as described by this draft the former represents a
    statefully assigned IPv6 address while the latter a prefix intended
    for application on a target NAS interface.  These attributes are
    envisaged to co-exist in Radius messages and thus it is recommended
    that each attribute be used for its intended semantic purpose only.
    A functional substitution of one attribute for the other may however
    be an optional configuration feature of a Radius client and server.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/trac/ticket/6#comment:2>
radext <http://tools.ietf.org/radext/>