IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [radext] draft-cullen-radextra-status-realm-00

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 26 April 2023 16:10 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0E76C14CE3F for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 09:10:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (bad RSA signature)" header.d=sandelman.ca
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 JBP3sLvmknmM for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 09:09:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (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 D56BBC1519A8 for <radext@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 09:09:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dyas.sandelman.ca (desktop4.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.16]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 537CD1F4B3 for <radext@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 16:09:56 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1682525396; bh=pTdocY+P8CQpQLN4ScoK67Ymg24f0V7jvb6wY/uF2M0=; h=From:To:Subject:In-reply-to:References:Date:From; b=Qy2V7DGF8DILDyOTp42gxMCS4R98klfmvf4IIwLnp9TIm+6QjYfSO7jnfhNioubOm k+kJwxjlOBBzNiPr+hCRA4VDCFe1kUrsuA69u8kuPJ0c6d/PnWz2pQXN/7X/wiAh7U kR3MQmWa/+hKqTH25KDld/YPnCjr6WS5lSOItrn4EsZJMqAkCnnfMPD4uCX1F7cNXx rr1uxejgLPIJdGCs6dhjhmFHkFwVfRS4x2UOebfYIHZdgRnX4/Cbi/243DRx+VCebW IdHo/a7Ha6CY92LbZISOMVtdYPBgp2payOkmK6CAWj5hiV8B82jzrUO3rtkBslGB39 1gYflrJm1Mddg==
Received: by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A41D2A0F4B; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 15:52:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from dyas (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A282AA0F47 for <radext@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Apr 2023 09:52:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: radext@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <DA1886A1-7295-445F-BA46-A342CBECC9DC@deployingradius.com>
References: <CANsiXEK56aVwtjGqrLYsq-syC=zrHVqNzgKV7_gkkZXAkQhQ=w@mail.gmail.com> <DA1886A1-7295-445F-BA46-A342CBECC9DC@deployingradius.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> message dated "Mon, 24 Apr 2023 16:01:56 -0400."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 09:52:28 -0400
Message-ID: <1393972.1682517148@dyas>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/DrGWC3ZiM1PgQuea9B6t7ku8B8s>
Subject: Re: [radext] draft-cullen-radextra-status-realm-00
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: RADIUS EXTensions working group discussion list <radext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/radext>, <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/radext/>
List-Post: <mailto:radext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext>, <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 16:10:03 -0000

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> wrote:
    >> Should consideration be given to MTU constraints that may be
    >> encountered by increasing the hop-by-hop packet size?

    >   It's worth mentioning.  But at 4K max packet sizes and maybe 64 bytes
    > for Server-Identifier, we'll go through a large number of proxies
    > before we run out of packet.

I think you explained 4K to me before, but with radius/1.1, is it worth
setting a higher maximum size?  Or providing a way for each hop to express
it's maximum?

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-                      *I*LIKE*TRAINS*

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email