Subject: Is it an error?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 09:35:29 +0800

In Rfc2868 (RADIUS Attributes for Tunnel Protocol Support), Radius Attribute 91
is given to Tunnel-Server-Auth-ID.
However, In Rfc2888 (Secure Remote Access with L2TP),the same Radius Attribute
91 is given to IPSEC_MANDATE.
Is it an error?

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 19:08:50 +0800

Yeah it may not actually an error.Thanks.
I also think ipsec should't use tunnel-mode because L2tp has been a tunnel
itself.

It's not clear to me that it's actually an error, since RFC 2888 says 'A new
RADIUS attribute IPSEC_MANDATE (91) _may_ be defined for each user.' (my
emphasis) but does not actually define the attribute (at least in the
traditional, RFC 2865 fashion).  RADIUS attribute 91 is registered w/IANA as
Tunnel-Server-Auth-ID (see
http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/radius-types).  BTW, RFC 2888
describes using IPSEC _tunnel_ mode with L2TP, which is in direct
contradiction to the direction of the L2TP WG (as described in
draft-ietf-l2tpext-security-02.txt).

>
>
> -
> This message was passed through [email-masked], which
> is a sublist of [email-masked]. Not all messages are passed.
> Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Harald Alvestrand.
>