Ethereal-dev: Re: [Ethereal-dev] 3GPP RADIUS VSAs (according to TS 29.061 V4.8.0)
On 5 Dec 2003, at 00:20, Guy Harris wrote:
On Dec 4, 2003, at 3:02 PM, Rui Carmo wrote:
I've recently had need to parse some of the 3GPP RADIUS VSAs (and at
least identify the rest), so a colleague of mine dug up the specs and
I coded the following patch. It identifies all 18 of the currently
defined 3GPP VSAs and prints out the values we needed (mostly IPv4
addresses so far). I've left out IPv6 (for now, since I can't test
this yet) and left UTF-8 data unparsed (no real way to test it
either).
Is there some reason why there are THE3GPP_SGSN_ADDRESS and
THE3GPP_GGSN_ADDRESS type values, rather than just making those TLV's
have the type RADIUS_IP_ADDRESS? (That enum isn't supposed to be an
enum of every single attribute, it's supposed to be an enum of
attribute types.)
Not really, no. But the enum code block wasn't really commented (so I
couldn't know what it was supposed to be or the semantics of its use),
and after dealing with 3GPP specs for a few years, believe me when I
say you _want_ to discern even between labels to the same thing...
They're that picky.
Similarly, perhaps there should be a RADIUS_UTF8_STRING type for all
the UTF-8 strings and a RADIUS_IPV6_ADDRESS type for IPv6 addresses.
Maybe. I did not even attempt to find how to deal with either UTF-8 or
IPv6 inside Ethereal, since I could not test those fields.
Nevertheless, I tried to make it obvious where those ocurred, so that
someone more in tune with Ethereal might build on the VSA definitions I
provided and pick up where I left off. Do bear in mind that I fixed
what I needed and little more, and that I never touched Ethereal code
before, so I'm not aware of any guidelines...
Also, THE3GPP_CHARGING_ID is just like RADIUS_INTEGER4 except that
it's printed with "%d" rather than "%u" - is it really a *signed*
32-bit integer? If not, it should probably just be RADIUS_INTEGER4.
It is not defined within the standard as anything other than an octet
tuple (and as far as I know it is only an opaque "handle", without any
meaningful numeric value). I might check the spec again, but that is
another field I cannot test at this point since it is not filled in by
any network element.
Regards,
Rui Carmo
http://the.taoofmac.com
