cvs commit: src/sys/netgraph ng_pppoe.c
glebius at FreeBSD.org
Thu Jan 26 13:13:41 PST 2006
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 08:58:18PM +0000, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
B> >The other change I'm planning to do is the following - if the
B> >original PADI had empty Service-Name, and we are servicing a
B> >specific Service-Name, then return remove empty one from PADO,
B> >returning only our specific Service-Name.
B> Why would you want that? I haven't re-read the RFC but I think it said
B> that PADOs have to include the Service-Name the client requested first,
B> optionally followed by other Services-Names the AC may want to
You are right. I don't need this change.
B> Only in PADS you will then reply with only the one Name you accepted.
B> I can see the problem with your change and the above coming:
B> What would happen if you
B> a) accepted the 'any service' request
B> b) replied with 'any service' and 'service-name1, ...'
B> c) the client now requests 'any service'
B> d) you don't want to serve 'any service'
B> Well you should have been silent from a) to b) *ups*
This client won't connect, and will timeout on server.
I don't see problem here.
B> Ok, so the only solution to this problem is what should also be in
B> that RFC - it's a ploicy decicion of the AC -- of what to accept
B> as Service-Name in a PADI. We had a clear policy up to now name it
B> closed system. With your change we will have an open system (everyone
B> will see the Service-Names we may serve if requested).
You are right again. I think that default behavior should be old one.
We don't want to tell everyone all our available Service-Names.
B> The first thing might be a sysctl to toggle old and new behavior but
B> actually one may also want to decide on a peer by peer base depending
B> on a lookup perhaps based on mac address and/or Service-Name requested
B> or even simpler on a per ("Ethernet") port base and fall back to
B> a default policy if there is nothing (no hook) to do such a lookup.
B> [ I am () ethernet because it's not always a physical ethernet port
B> at the other end at the AC ]
If you want to implement more complicated access control, do it :)
B> The other question is what to do with clients requesting Service-Names
B> we don't know of but we know that we should serve the client?
B> I think this is a common scenario here in DE that some clients set a
B> Service-Name to "foo" and the ACs silently ignore and just serves it
B> (server all Service-Names policy). It's also a policy decision that
B> people might need ...
Isn't this what we always did with "*" Service-Name?
B>  There are people speculating what will happen if they need to make
B> use of service-names ... ;) Fun with nnK users ...
Totus tuus, Glebius.
More information about the cvs-all