Support for RFC4372 (Chargeable User Identity)

[Alan DeKok]

Stefan Winter wrote:
> is that implemented in FR, be it 1.1 or 2.0? According to 
> http://wiki.freeradius.org/RFC it shouldn't be. 

  It's in the dictionaries...

> From my reading of the RFC, defining it "by hand" in radreply is not 
> considered good enough, because it has a specific logic behind it:
> 
> (2.1)
> 
> If a home RADIUS server that supports the CUI attribute receives an
>    Access-Request packet containing a CUI (set to nul or otherwise), it
>    MUST include the CUI attribute in the Access-Accept packet.

  That can be done via policy logic in "unlang".

  if ("%{Chargeable-User-Identifier}")  {
	update reply {
		Chargeable-User-Identifier = ....
	}
  }

> So, always sending it via radreply would ignore the SHOULD NOT. Not defining 
> it at all though makes it difficult for the server to maintain a persistent 
> yet anonymous handle. So something like defining it by hand but only 
> including it if it was asked for would be needed. Is that logic present in 
> FR?

  Nope.  It's 4 lines of text, as above.

  The only complexity is *creating* it, and mapping it to a known user.
 This can be done via additional logic, and stored in SQL, for example.

  Alan DeKok.