: RE: [Dime] Contradiction in RFC 4006

Hi Glen,

I agree, the RFC is not clear in this. But the section 8.35 says=20
that the access device must drop all packets not matching the filters,
so I think that if Restriction-Filter-Rule AVP(s) or the Filter-Id =
AVP(s)=20
are not included in the CCA, then the access device must drop all =
packets.
=20
regards........Harri


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glen Zorn (gwz) [mailto:[email protected]]=20
> Sent: 15. kes=E4kuuta 2006 3:02
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; Glen Zorn (gwz)
> Subject: [Dime] Contradiction in RFC 4006
>=20
> Section 5.6.3 says=20
>=20
>    "A Final-Unit-Indication AVP with the Final-Unit-Action
>    RESTRICT_ACCESS [in the CCA message] indicates to the=20
>    device supporting this action that
>    the user's access MUST be restricted according to the IP packet
>    filters given in the Restriction-Filter-Rule AVP(s) or according to
>    the IP packet filters identified by the Filter-Id AVP(s)."
>=20
> However, the next sentence says
>=20
>    "The credit-control server SHOULD include either the
> Restriction-Filter-
>    Rule AVP or the Filter-Id AVP in the Credit-Control-Answer=20
> message."
>=20
> So, what happens if the referenced AVPs are not included in the CCA?
>=20
> ~gwz
>=20
> Treat the Earth well.=20
> It was not given to you by your parents.
> It was loaned to you by your children.
>   -- Kenyan Proverb
>=20
> Humankind has not woven the web of life.
> We are but one thread within it.
> Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.
> All things are bound together.
> All things connect.
>   -- Chief Seattle
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>=20