Talk:Diameter (protocol)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-Class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

The name should be Diameter, not DIAMETER. --Fylke

RFC3588 uses 'Diameter', but both spellings are common in many documents. 'Diameter' might be preferred because it's not an abreviation. -- bluezy

The page for RADIUS says that DIAMETER *IS* backward compatible. What is the truth? could someone knowledgable please get the two entries in a consistent shape? --a reader

It's not directly backwards compatible because it uses a different different protocol layout, and runs on a different transport (TCP or SCTP instead of UDP). But the designers have gone to great pains to ensure that it's easy to build a gateway between RADIUS and Diameter, but using the same AVP codes for example. The NASREQ application (application doesn't mean a product here, but a specific sub-protocol, defined on top of the base protocol from RFC3588) almost a complete copy of the original RADIUS protocol. -- bluezy (currently working on gateways)

Is SIP a Diameter application ? I don't think it is -- a reader

No, but the "Diameter SIP Application" is. See <>. Should not be confused with SIP itself.

What is the performance impact of using Diameter v/s RADIUS or a direct LDAP query ? -- a reader

Diameter is not a peer-to-peer protocol, it is a client-server protocol, with exception that server can also have some initiated messages. However the reason and difference is because if it was peer-to-peer, both server and client would have the same set of messages to exchange which is not the case in Diameter. Instead Diameter clients and Diameter servers each have their own sets of "requests" and "answers".

Actually in the base protocol there are no distinct messages that a client or server should use, but just the applications running on top of the protocol make this difference. Because of this, I would argue that the protocol itself is peer-to-peer. Also the difference should be made as opposed to the RADIUS legacy. --Vingarzan (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

it is possible to route besides to authorize? -- member of <>

On the difference list:

RADIUS can and should also use IPSec

RADIUS is also a client server protocol with server-intiated messages (RFC 3576)

RADIUS can also be extended.. The real point of Diameter applications are *well defined*. If you look realistically at the avaliable diameter applications they need specific server/client codes to support them which is the same when adding a new code to RADIUS.

Who cares about 32-bit boundaries? Remove this and lets get some real-world benefits of the Diameter protocol listed.

RADIUS also supports accounting, user session? This needs to be clarified or removed entirely.

Man get back to reality - Diameter is happening big time Diameter is everywhere - in any Telco RFP today you need Diameter support. and soon also in the web with the SIP Diameter applciation

Sr061317 (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC) What is the reference for the command codes 300 and above? IMO, RFC4740 is the reference here and it states other codes for the SIP-related commands.

RFC 5516 was just released the other day. It covers 316-323. -Verdatum (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Here's a better answer, 300-305 is defined in 3GPP TS 29.229; 306-310 is defined in 3GPP TS 29.109, and 311 is from 3GPP TS 29.230
I believe the problem is that the command names aren't necessarily unique identifiers. So, User-Authorization-Request can refer to both 283 and 300. This is generally not too much of a problem because certain commands are only defined for use in certain Diameter applications. -Verdatum (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


I introduced this table to make it easier to refer to the Diameter related RFCs. I followed a table structure that is being used by several other protocol articles.

# Title Date published Related article Obsoleted by Notes
RFC 3588 Diameter Base Protocol. September 2003. Diameter
RFC 3589 Diameter Command Codes for Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Release 5. September 2003.
RFC 4004 Diameter Mobile IPv4 Application. August 2005.
RFC 4006 Diameter Credit-Control Application. August 2005.
RFC 4072 Diameter Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application. August 2005.
RFC 4740 Diameter Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Application. M. November 2006.
RFC 5224 Diameter Policy Processing Application. March 2008.
RFC 5431 Diameter ITU-T Rw Policy Enforcement Interface Application. March 2009.
RFC 5447 Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support for Network Access Server to Diameter Server Interaction. February 2009.
RFC 5516 Diameter Command Code Registration for the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS). April 2009.

 kgrr talk 15:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


During the next few weeks, I will be working on this article in order to bring it up to shape. A lay person should be able to understand how the protocol works by reading the article. Many of the base concepts are missing currently such as the basic framework, compatibility with RADIUS, and how each of the applications work.  kgrr talk 15:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of links to implementations/products[edit]

Dawnseeker2000 removed most of the external links to implementations. I have removed the last one to keep things consistent. Over the years the article has been plagued by vendors adding external links to push their products. Now (2016) it is easy to find multiple implementations so there is no reason for the article to link to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isj-wikipedia (talkcontribs) 19:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)