IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Emu] EAP and Fragmentation

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Fri, 15 March 2019 13:09 UTC

Return-Path: <aland@deployingradius.com>
X-Original-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF441131230 for <emu@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 06:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jcvGj3jM1YyO for <emu@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 06:09:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.networkradius.com (mail.networkradius.com [62.210.147.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 017DD12EB11 for <emu@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 06:09:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.46.58] (198-84-237-221.cpe.teksavvy.com [198.84.237.221]) by mail.networkradius.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F3F23713; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 13:09:43 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <2F9F6888-CB17-44E3-BE6D-9378430D6738@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 09:09:42 -0400
Cc: "emu@ietf.org" <emu@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9B5E0A4C-7854-4A8A-AE82-8724DDA0A10F@deployingradius.com>
References: <2F9F6888-CB17-44E3-BE6D-9378430D6738@ericsson.com>
To: John Mattsson <john.mattsson@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/5kt-huVR6Y36Ooa33riddXm2o_Q>
Subject: Re: [Emu] EAP and Fragmentation
X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" <emu.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/emu>, <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/emu/>
List-Post: <mailto:emu@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu>, <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 13:09:47 -0000

On Mar 15, 2019, at 6:13 AM, John Mattsson <john.mattsson@ericsson.com> wrote:
> I think we need to choose one and ensure that implementations following draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13 can talk to each other. Do anybody have any data on how many implementations out there set the L bit for unfragmented messages and how many implementations do not accept unfragmented messages with the L bit set?

  I've done a quick check.  On reception, FreeRADIUS accepts the L bit for any type of message.  It doesn't care about fragments, just that the length is correct.

  For sending packets, FreeRADIUS sets the L bit only if it is sending fragments.

  Alan DeKok.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email