VSA id's higer than 255

[Alan DeKok]

Michael Lecuyer <mjl at 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.