> What's the serious paranoia about vendor-specific extensions? As long
> as they are not required, i.e. you can still operate the portmaster at a
> competetive functionality even with a strict IETF RADIUS daemon, they're
> fine in my book. The main problems I can see are:
I'm wondering the same thing. The IETF Radius working group that
Livingston worships so much *put in the ability to have vendor-specific
extensions so that vendors could add their own things* so it sure isn't a
bad thing.
> Their numeric codes may be shoved aside by IETF revisions if they are
> chosen badly or unluckily.
>
> They may become unsupported in future releases of ComOS, or replaced
> by IETF-approved extensions.
>
> Otherwise, I think extensions are a great testing ground for new
> fodder for standards, and can often add value to the ISP with the clue
> to take advantage.
Very true.
> Go ahead, deny it!
And eventually I (and others) find a better solution. I'm glad that
Livingston fights off pseudo-standards like V.FAST but Livingston is
always taking it too far. I'm getting sick of this. ComOS is so
feature-less.
- Steve
- Systems Manager
- Community Internet Access, Inc.
- Gallup and Grants, New Mexico