[radext] Re: Comments on draft-janfred-radext-radius-congestion-control
Alan DeKok <alan.dekok@inkbridge.io> Thu, 06 November 2025 17:56 UTC
Return-Path: <alan.dekok@inkbridge.io>
X-Original-To: radext@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: radext@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C82AB8494BD2; Thu, 6 Nov 2025 09:56:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=inkbridge.io header.b="Hp567vln"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=inkbridge.io header.b="eQDmBTiX"
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TpTFtMZHZdPa; Thu, 6 Nov 2025 09:56:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail2.networkradius.com (mail2.networkradius.com [184.95.211.25]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E1D38494B25; Thu, 6 Nov 2025 09:56:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=inkbridge.io; s=sep2024; h=To:References:Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=SghHoDpLgC0S7KsDC7UrLWqhBrOr2Sm/M3cOJoYWu0U=; b=Hp567vlnNCU/OCNpcTN8yJ3yk nfM2rvVRRqV+oX6p9jujnks0FOD9IhM+qe3icu6BCznhvM7uxhiXFNXkpVuejpBC9C8hUVRM3hJgh W0YbXIuuuV1eRVXxZPCBD9g8exYjhFammPXC2MS7bkP26gQ2sU4fEP+vqgQ8gccZty41RSBBZiGiR oDZ/qWcyJWBwZZkDWK81oKzU3MKz0tbPJuuCY6wtNHO5XPAWai4RD+R/869MjBfYm5gpW3UsFpsHy FNxIigSZI146cW6x8FZ/ORlVRkbXUEVU6ds7KRsXIQDkrMgB2CkvLyeMNeyNZX6q+s1BpN8A7TzXn GBbu7DTsQ==;
Received: from mail.servers.fr.internal.networkradius.com ([192.168.42.56]:48078 helo=mail.networkradius.com) by mail2.networkradius.com with esmtp (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <alan.dekok@inkbridge.io>) id 1vH4DK-003Lzh-4M; Thu, 06 Nov 2025 17:56:02 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=inkbridge.io; s=sep2024; t=1762451761; bh=SghHoDpLgC0S7KsDC7UrLWqhBrOr2Sm/M3cOJoYWu0U=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=eQDmBTiXKfhrZBxsS82ihcCFS2K4V0nPt8DgNWpCck3YGRJacoUiHEKrug5XhvAIT 7NxC+0yg3zxBXEp3oORbBHsDhH695WL88LZG21+rpYtX28MCzwaGoNWGtd5USHGXX0 MyCQlb+sqKPzzqf+nRlj6HPUpFCB3B8hdYPoUMLoA3UFMHpXf7ZIUbYkgc/7wiBf3I H72Gaezyu5Qzh68/QVDdZOhO+nup68D2gzismRVnnjrl1attE+tIZO1YJrfwVzbAub omCVockbs9WMtOiJJnpBrKau9pTUbikwaWtEF2xUgBDe18Z8NL3J+iqWgbDeCeoWQA MzDM0MCIDvX6Q==
Received: from smtpclient.apple (nat64-59.meeting.ietf.org [31.130.238.89]) by mail.networkradius.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8B114D3; Thu, 6 Nov 2025 17:56:01 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3826.700.81\))
From: Alan DeKok <alan.dekok@inkbridge.io>
In-Reply-To: <766792D1-C042-4D4B-B835-8024F45EEC0E@inkbridge.io>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2025 12:55:50 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A4E09DE4-45AA-4F6E-A6B3-83E9AC70802B@inkbridge.io>
References: <EBF17D53-6082-4A6F-A4D2-6D6014C20DDC@inkbridge.io> <IA4PR11MB894334408BEC1DCE31B12EB9C7C2A@IA4PR11MB8943.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <3CE52F6B-949C-47F5-9E78-02F3FD5677B0@inkbridge.io> <IA4PR11MB894319425EB633A56DAC06EAC7C2A@IA4PR11MB8943.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <766792D1-C042-4D4B-B835-8024F45EEC0E@inkbridge.io>
To: Alan DeKok <alan.dekok=40inkbridge.io@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3826.700.81)
Message-ID-Hash: H4MCNIBU4MK5ZAYFMGHKX3RNJZJTRH6A
X-Message-ID-Hash: H4MCNIBU4MK5ZAYFMGHKX3RNJZJTRH6A
X-MailFrom: alan.dekok@inkbridge.io
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-radext.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: "Vadim Cargatser (vcargats)" <vcargats=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [radext] Re: Comments on draft-janfred-radext-radius-congestion-control
List-Id: RADIUS EXTensions working group discussion list <radext.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/6oD0udsrCqalOiaYnSQ6liFnrQA>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/radext>
List-Help: <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:radext-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:radext@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:radext-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:radext-leave@ietf.org>
On Nov 6, 2025, at 12:39 PM, Alan DeKok <alan.dekok=40inkbridge.io@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: ... Some points from the current discussion: It looks like the solution does not need Proxy-Capabilities in every Access-Request. The goal of the congestion control document is two-fold: 1. Reduce the total amount of traffic sent over a proxy network 2. More quickly clean up the 8-bit IDs across a proxy network. The blocking of users is for a few different situations: 1. I haven't had an account for 10 years, but my phone still tries to connect * we want to be able to say "this user is blocked at that location for a longish period of time" 2. A broken system is sending enormous amounts of traffic for one account * we want to delay rejects, which experience shows will also slow down the sender 3. An attacker is testing passwords, either by sending enormous amounts of traffic (as with #2), or by sending many simultaneous access requests for one account * we want to block this account for a shortish period of time, and/or delay rejects for a short time. The discussion in Montreal indicates that the "delay reject for one second" situation is very similar to the situation of "block this user for one second". As such, we may not need two different mechanisms. Another result of the discussion is that we should recommend that all "edge" RADIUS servers ensure that there is at least a short delay between request and reject. And, that proxies should ideally forward traffic as quickly as possible. The recommendations for a home server are then: 1. If the account doesn't exist, it should reply indicating that the account is blocked for a "long" period of time, e.g. 10 min. 2. If the credentials are wrong, it should reply indicating that the account is blocked for a "short" period of time, e.g. 1-5 seconds. The combination of the recommendations for the "edge" and "home" servers should address most of the requirements noted above. Alan DeKok.
- [radext] Comments on draft-janfred-radext-radius-… Alan DeKok
- [radext] Re: Comments on draft-janfred-radext-rad… Alan DeKok
- [radext] Re: Comments on draft-janfred-radext-rad… Vadim Cargatser (vcargats)
- [radext] Re: Comments on draft-janfred-radext-rad… Vadim Cargatser (vcargats)
- [radext] Re: Comments on draft-janfred-radext-rad… Alan DeKok
- [radext] Re: Comments on draft-janfred-radext-rad… Alan DeKok
- [radext] Re: Comments on draft-janfred-radext-rad… Alan DeKok