| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Kozlov <xeb@mail.ru>
|
|
There are a few inconsistencies between TR-101 and RFC 4679.
Since RFC 4679 is only informational, prefer TR-101 in case
of incompatibilities and explicitely document this choice.
Signed-off-by: Guillaume Nault <g.nault@alphalink.fr>
|
|
This TR-101 sub-tag has no payload.
Signed-off-by: Guillaume Nault <g.nault@alphalink.fr>
|
|
These are all 4 bytes integer values, except ACCESS_LOOP_ENCAP
which represents three independant values of one byte each.
Signed-off-by: Guillaume Nault <g.nault@alphalink.fr>
|
|
The length field of PPPoE TR-101 sub-tags only takes the payload size
into account (as opposed to its RADIUS counterpart that stores the
full sub-tag length, including the 2 bytes long header).
Signed-off-by: Guillaume Nault <g.nault@alphalink.fr>
|
|
When a sub-tags is skipped while parsing a TR-101 tag, the ptr variable
must be updated to point to the next sub-tag, otherwise the next loop
iteration erroneously interprets tag information.
While here, fix the range of attribute that mustn't be present in RADIUS
access requests (RFC 4679, section 4).
Signed-off-by: Guillaume Nault <g.nault@alphalink.fr>
|
|
As per TR-101 specifications and RFC 4679, 0x84 is the sub-tag
number for Minimum-Data-Rate-Downstream (instead of
Maximum-Data-Rate-Upstream).
Signed-off-by: Guillaume Nault <g.nault@alphalink.fr>
|
|
|
|
|
