I was writing to check if support for "VSA Id's higher than 255" has been added in freeRadius 1.0.5. I will appreciate any feedback you guys might have. Regards, Swaran Sethi -----Original Message----- From: freeradius-users-bounces@lists.freeradius.org [mailto:freeradius-users-bounces@lists.freeradius.org] On Behalf Of Alan DeKok Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 2:09 PM To: FreeRadius users mailing list Subject: Re: VSA id's higer than 255 Michael Lecuyer <mjl@theorem.com> wrote:
The format for the long tag VSA is the same as the standard Vendor-Specific attribute (8 bit tag, 8 bit length) but the sub-attribute tag field has been expanded to 16 bits. The sub-attribute length field remains 8 bits.
That doesn't sound too bad.
All vendor specific attributes are coded using 16-bit attribute type in network byte order and Lucent-Vendor-Id (4846) as Vendor-Id.
That makes it easier.
I believe the support for long Vendor-Specific tags was discussed here
in the past with limited interest in support.
It's about 40 lines of code to support. The weirdness that I recall was Nortel, which mixed normal VSA's, and USR-style VSA's in the same vendor space.
192.168.1.1 ... VendorLongTags=Ascend - indicating that Ascend VSA's use long tags and all other VSA's like Cisco) would be short. Ascend / Lucent VSA's do not always use long tag VSAs.
If it's always that the Lucent attributes use 16-bit id's, it's OK.
This introduction of long tags is a real wart for every RADIUS server.
There are probably other ways to have avoided 16 bit tags. Naturally the offender is too big to ignore and arbitrarily forced the issue. Remember that in the past Ascend (pre-Lucent) grabbed unassigned RADIUS attributes (from 119 to 255) without thinking there might be a problem
with that either.
Yup. I'll add something to the CVS head. Grab a snapshot in a few days, and see if it works. Alan DeKok. - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html