Diameter (protocol) - Comparison With RADIUS

Comparison With RADIUS

The name is a pun on the RADIUS protocol, which is the predecessor (a diameter is twice the radius). Diameter is not directly backwards compatible but provides an upgrade path for RADIUS. The main differences are the following:

  • Reliable transport protocols (TCP or SCTP, not UDP)
    • The IETF is in the process of standardizing TCP Transport for RADIUS
  • Network or transport layer security (IPsec or TLS)
    • The IETF is in the process of standardizing Transport Layer Security for RADIUS
  • Transition support for RADIUS, although Diameter is not fully compatible with RADIUS
  • Larger address space for attribute-value pairs (AVPs) and identifiers (32 bits instead of 8 bits)
  • Client–server protocol, with exception of supporting some server-initiated messages as well
  • Both stateful and stateless models can be used
  • Dynamic discovery of peers (using DNS SRV and NAPTR)
  • Capability negotiation
  • Supports application layer acknowledgements, defines failover methods and state machines (RFC 3539)
  • Error notification
  • Better roaming support
  • More easily extended; new commands and attributes can be defined
  • Aligned on 32-bit boundaries
  • Basic support for user-sessions and accounting

Read more about this topic:  Diameter (protocol)

Famous quotes containing the words comparison with and/or comparison:

    “I have travelled a good deal in Concord; and everywhere, in shops, and offices, and fields, the inhabitants have appeared to me to be doing penance in a thousand remarkable ways.... The twelve labors of Hercules were trifling in comparison with those which my neighbors have undertaken; for they were only twelve, and had an end; but I could never see that these men slew or captured any monster or finished any labor.”
    —Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)

    “The comparison between Coleridge and Johnson is obvious in so far as each held sway chiefly by the power of his tongue. The difference between their methods is so marked that it is tempting, but also unnecessary, to judge one to be inferior to the other. Johnson was robust, combative, and concrete; Coleridge was the opposite. The contrast was perhaps in his mind when he said of Johnson: “his bow-wow manner must have had a good deal to do with the effect produced.””
    —Virginia Woolf (1882–1941)