Artur Hecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > you might be right. yet i think that we might ignore some opportunities > which would be possible/supported by diameter.
Like... what? > i really believe that current usage produces demand in the same > manner as demand influences the usage. using additional web-based > "touches" to trigger server solicitations by the client is indeed > quite ridiculous. I'm not sure what you're referring to here. > the main problem with radius is IMHO its client-server nature. it > inherently lacks control. also TCP in dimaeter and defined TLS in proxy > mode might be advantageous. It shouldn't be too hard to write a radsec implementation. Ideally, it could leverage the TLS code in rlm_eap. Alan DeKok. - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html
