IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSAWG] [Add] 🔔 WG LC: RADIUS Extensions for Encrypted DNS

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Thu, 13 October 2022 20:34 UTC

Return-Path: <aland@deployingradius.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE4A7C157B53; Thu, 13 Oct 2022 13:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hA0oovGDQ5NE; Thu, 13 Oct 2022 13:34:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.networkradius.com (mail.networkradius.com [62.210.147.122]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3068C157B3B; Thu, 13 Oct 2022 13:34:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (135-23-95-173.cpe.pppoe.ca [135.23.95.173]) by mail.networkradius.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 285CBC6; Thu, 13 Oct 2022 20:34:34 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: NetworkRADIUS; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=deployingradius.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.1\))
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <23954.1665692370@localhost>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2022 16:34:33 -0400
Cc: opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org>, radext@ietf.org, ADD Mailing list <add@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AB5A8E57-AB15-4D14-976F-609B8E130E16@deployingradius.com>
References: <28766_1665646855_6347C107_28766_2_1_c61b294eae1742b4bfbf125d0fd0e92f@orange.com> <B6BBABE1-9194-4190-A84A-BA64889FC6E6@hopcount.ca> <CAHbrMsAsC0N2uNpFuiMYEiPgQQQzAwikuiTL0dWZoNhgcPRwNw@mail.gmail.com> <8F15B334-861A-432D-B42A-5C7C8D5FCCEB@deployingradius.com> <23954.1665692370@localhost>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/TbTvQOurf0wXDlrCA_Qd1lmwjn4>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [Add] 🔔 WG LC: RADIUS Extensions for Encrypted DNS
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2022 20:34:40 -0000

On Oct 13, 2022, at 4:19 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> If I understand you correctly, the DHCPv6 option bytes would just be sliced
> up into 253 byte fragments, and then reassembled into DHCPv6 options.

  Largely, yes.

> The radius part need not respect the DHCPv6 option boundaries, but can fill
> each DHCPv6-Options with as much as the fragment as fits.

  Yes.

  Similar things happen already with EAP packets.  These are ~1K or more.  RADIUS is just a transport, so "EAP goes in" and "EAP comes out".  The EAP contents are unmodified.

> Does Radius over TCP relax any of the 4K issue?

  No.  But it avoids fragmentation of UDP packets.  Which is positive.  And RADIUS/UDP needs to die anyways, so ....

  Taking a quick look, nothing else in RADIUS mandates support for longer than 4K packets.  However, I believe that many implementations are happy to accept longer packets.

  i.e. it's 2022, I think that software can easily handle 64K buffers for network protocols.

  There's also RFC 7499 which supports fragmentation of CoA packets.  Perhaps a similar method could be used here, if required?

  Alan DeKok.

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status