Subject: [Geopriv] RE: draft-jones-radius-geopriv

From: Tschofenig Hannes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:29:34 +0100

hi bernard, 

> > One concern, if this location configuration information (LCI)
> > is to be carried over RADIUS, is that the example in section 6
> > seems to be 993 characters long. This one attribute seems to be
> > taking a large share of the maximum RADIUS packet size of 4096.
> > [RFC 2865, p 15] Is there enough room for everything else that
> > would be expected with this attribute?
> 
> I'm curious as to the contrast in approach taken by this 
> draft versus the
> DHCP option.  Given the recent activity on encapsulation of RADIUS
> attributes in DHCP, isn't it important for the DHCP option 
> and the RADIUS
> attribute to take similar approaches?
> 
> For example, if the goal is to make both the client and RADIUS server
> aware of their location, then the NAS might pass a location 
> attribute to
> the RADIUS server, as well as passing this to the DHCP server 
> in a relay
> option.  Encoding the information two very different ways 
> seems like it
> results in unnecessary overhead.

that's certainly a good view. having many different ways of encoding things
is not the best approach. 

ciao
hannes

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv