Hi Dan, So the draft describes how a NAS connected to a specific RADIUS server can obtain from that server information about other RADIUS servers on the deployment, together with their priorities. Usually the RADIUS traffic distribution is configured and conducted by a Load Balancer network component (e.g. F5 Load Balancer). The mechanism described in this draft allows RADIUS servers on the deployment to balance traffic between them dynamically according to their load or other characteristics. However it requires implementation on both sides - on NAS and RADIUS server.
Is my understanding correct? Thanks Oleg On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 12:13 PM Massameno, Dan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Ops and Management Area WG, > > There have been a number of great suggestions on where to post this document > (Thanks Stefan!). I'm now emailing [email protected] and cc'ing > [email protected]. > > The draft is posted here... > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-massameno-radius-lb-00 > > Do I need an official IETF sponsor? Would it help to try and get a vendor > interested in implementing the protocol? Cisco is our primary vendor at Yale > University. I was wondering if there is anyone on either of these working > groups that communicates with Cisco people on a regular basis? > > Thank you for your help. > > --Dan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stefan Winter <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 01:52 > To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]>; Massameno, Dan > <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]>; Roman Danyliw > <[email protected]>; Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]>; OpsAWG-Chairs > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: RADIUS Extension, Getting Started > > Hello Joe, > > > thanks for reaching out. RADEXT is dormant since a number of years already. > I'm afraid if you were to send the document that way, you would get little to > no review. > > > I think the best way forward is to take this to OPSAWG and send a mail to > radext about the draft just in case. > > > Greetings, > > > Stefan Winter > > > Am 30.06.20 um 17:21 schrieb Joe Clarke (jclarke): > > Thanks, Dan. I’m also copying the radext-chairs to get their perspective > > on this. > > > > Joe > > > >> On Jun 30, 2020, at 11:03, Massameno, Dan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Warren, > >> > >> I have the RADIUS extension draft now posted: > >> https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftoo > >> ls.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-massameno-radius-lb-00&data=02%7C01%7C > >> dan.massameno%40yale.edu%7Cc0b3c01a3a9d44d004c308d81f152ef2%7Cdd8cbeb > >> b21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637293523139392341&sdata=7dOp > >> ZmU5Xsj2tusf2Fiukqv1oxd2b8uL4Po%2BI04hw%2BE%3D&reserved=0 > >> > >> Abstract > >> > >> This document describes a method for a Network Access Server (NAS) to > >> dynamically discover all available RADIUS servers. It defines a new > >> message type within the STATUS-SERVER message, which is requested by > >> the NAS and provided by the RADIUS server. The NAS is then able to > >> load balance its RADIUS messages across multiple RADIUS servers based > >> on priority and weight supplied by the initial server. > >> > >> Base on the draft do you have a better idea on if this should be posed > >> into RADEXT or OPSAWG? I must admit I am not familiar with either of > >> these groups. > >> > >> Thank you for your help. > >> > >> --Dan > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Massameno, Dan > >> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 10:56 > >> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]> > >> Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]>; Roman Danyliw <[email protected]>; > >> OpsAWG-Chairs <[email protected]>; Warren Kumari > >> <[email protected]> > >> Subject: RE: RADIUS Extension, Getting Started > >> > >> Rob, > >> Thank you and the extended team for all your help. I have uploaded > >> draft-massameno-radius-lb to the I-D Submission system. Also attached is > >> the PDF version. > >> > >> I'm very much interested in seeing how the process goes from here. Please > >> let me know how I may be of assistance. > >> > >> --Dan > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Warren Kumari <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 18:00 > >> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]> > >> Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]>; Massameno, Dan > >> <[email protected]>; Roman Danyliw <[email protected]>; OpsAWG-Chairs > >> <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: RADIUS Extension, Getting Started > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 1:06 PM Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> Hi Ben, > >>> > >>> Good catch re Radext, copying Warren. Warren, the question is whether > >>> RADEXT is still active and taking new work, or whether it should go to > >>> OPSAWG instead? I have a slight concern whether we will get enough > >>> interest for this work in OPSAWG ... > >> Without knowing a bunch more about the draft I don't really think that > >> this is a question that I can usefully weigh in on. > >> > >> If it is an extension to RADIUS/is heavily RADIUS focused, then RADEXT is > >> probably the right place -- but, it could always be aimed at RADEXT (put > >> -radext- in the draft name), but we can try and stir up some interest in > >> OPSAWG. If it turns out that it is RADIUS related, and RADEXT doesn't want > >> to pick it up and run with it, perhaps that's a strong signal that RADEXT > >> should be closed...? > >> > >> W > >> > >>> Regards, > >>> Rob > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> > >>>> Sent: 21 June 2020 03:42 > >>>> To: Massameno, Dan <[email protected]> > >>>> Cc: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]>; Roman Danyliw > >>>> <[email protected]>; OpsAWG-Chairs <[email protected]> > >>>> Subject: Re: RADIUS Extension, Getting Started > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:58:12PM +0000, Massameno, Dan wrote: > >>>>> Rob, > >>>>> This sounds great. With the links provided by Roman I am > >>>>> reviewing the > >>>> literature to make sure my draft has everything it needs to start > >>>> the process. I found references to xml2rfc and kramdown, which I > >>>> also want to run it through. > >>>>> Thank you for your help. I would be happy to have someone take a > >>>>> look > >>>> before it's posted. As soon as I have it formatted correctly I'll > >>>> send it over. Is there someone in particular I should send it to? > >>>> > >>>> I would recommend uploading the internet-draft to the IETF > >>>> datatracker at > >>>> https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fd > >>>> a > >>>> tatracker.ietf.org%2Fsubmit%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cdan.massameno%40y > >>>> a > >>>> le.edu%7C112cacc6da6a40e6560708d816f7c0b9%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3 > >>>> e > >>>> 87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637284600637313249&sdata=EkkSwHAB%2BAV3XQDz%2FsYJMsBLiKymz6n4BROVWGbg7Yg%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> and then sending a link to that document to both [email protected] > >>>> and [email protected]. It's also okay to skip the first part and > >>>> send the document itself to those addresses. > >>>> > >>>> The radext (RADIUS Extensions) working group is not very active at > >>>> the moment, which is why I agree with the others' recommendations > >>>> to ask the OPSAWG working group chairs' advice as well. > >>>> > >>>> Hope this helps, > >>>> > >>>> Ben > >> > >> > >> -- > >> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea > >> in the first place. > >> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing > >> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of > >> pants. > >> ---maf > _______________________________________________ > radext mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
