The state of TACACS+
cb.list6 at gmail.com
Mon Dec 30 14:07:17 UTC 2013
On Dec 30, 2013 9:01 AM, "Saku Ytti" <saku at ytti.fi> wrote:
> On (2013-12-30 08:49 -0500), Christopher Morrow wrote:
> > Nor accounting...
> I think this is probably sufficient justification for TACACS+. I'm not
> command authorization is sufficient, as you can deliver group via radius
> maps to authorized commands.
> But if you must support accounting, per-command authorization comes as
> gift more or less.
Yes. Per-command auth and accounting is needed.
So what we need is tacacs over TLS (sctp / ipv6)
I agree tacacs is long in the tooth and needs to be revisited and invested
in. Please take my money (serious)
More information about the NANOG