Subject: Re: (radius) Matching NAS-IP-Address to actual real-life NAS IP a ddress

From: Carl Rigney <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:11:27 -0800 (PST)

Why bother to provide both?  Either identifies the NAS, so what's the
good of carrying redundant information in the request?

But I'd be OK with softening the not recommended to a "think about
whether you really want to carry redundant info" or omitting it
altogether, depending on how people feel.

--
Carl
-
To unsubscribe, email [email-masked]' with
'unsubscribe ietf-radius' in the body of the message.

---

From: Dave Mitton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 10:26:44 -0500

Because as a client implementation, I want to be able to support a Server
that uses either. 
If a server only supports one or the other, then I won't work with half the
servers.

If all servers have to support both, because no client can support both,
then I would submit that either we decide on one to be REQUIRED and the
other OPTIONAL and be done with it.

I don't understand why the current state of things is so wishy-washy.  If
identification is required pick one that works, or allow both, and let the
servers sort it out.

	Dave.

>altogether, depending on how people feel.
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Mitton			  		ESN: 248-4570
Consulting Engineer, Nortel Networks	978-916-4570 Direct
Carrier Packet Solutions, I&SP Netwks	978-916-4789 FAX
Billerica, MA 01821				[email-masked]
-
To unsubscribe, email [email-masked]' with
'unsubscribe ietf-radius' in the body of the message.