Re: [radext] Client ID exhaustion

Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com> Thu, 27 April 2017 17:35 UTC

Return-Path: <enkechen@cisco.com>
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 5BE54129B57 for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 10:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 kXT7jiv_tQ9g for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 10:35:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 625F5129B50 for <radext@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 10:32:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2489; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1493314353; x=1494523953; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qNlhq7vdPsZGgBSveWzsiYKs6fOrGk35F9gC3ABdPGU=; b=XuVmyHW4vLzXGC9Dg/6Dwx6nIAyM9bMluozt4cuqAjXb7jyMnKVmOdn2 U2sL0fpmWzkdrVTj2Jx189vUS8YgLmO7mR8KDrRhXn+WmtJ7oaH0+9M0i sxo0lF+Eh0u7lwVEdO7y3xw7mu5lHNYvpTmCDswYaHQxuazsmsLJH2g6h 4=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,384,1488844800"; d="scan'208";a="413729518"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Apr 2017 17:32:32 +0000
Received: from [10.82.250.87] (rtp-vpn6-597.cisco.com [10.82.250.87]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3RHWVkr003826; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 17:32:32 GMT
To: Stefan Winter <stefan.winter@restena.lu>
References: <f521cd74-028d-33e7-4b94-0a9d65bd7d37@restena.lu> <e4c8aee2-c97f-e89e-8b48-6c943651238f@cisco.com> <fe4e2daa-21f8-66f6-83b5-19245f1e4564@restena.lu>
Cc: radext@ietf.org, Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com>
From: Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <689f37b3-e4e6-65ac-fd68-b4bacbd3a20f@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 10:32:31 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <fe4e2daa-21f8-66f6-83b5-19245f1e4564@restena.lu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/S9AB1zWXew6nB0T11K6Bq6e5MCY>
Subject: Re: [radext] Client ID exhaustion
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 17:35:08 -0000

Hi, Stefan:

Yes, it does use multiple source ports.

Regards,   -- Enke

On 4/27/17 2:00 AM, Stefan Winter wrote:
> Hello,
> 
>> The case we have is with the wireless controller that needs to manage
>> thousands of APs and tens of thousands of clients. The wireless world
>> uses "centralized" management model.  The scaling requirements keep
>> increasing every year.
>>
>> Though RADIUS is an old protocol, it is a critical piece in the wireless
>> world.
> 
> Your reply did not indicate whether the wireless controller implements
> the MAY in RFC2865 (a piece of information I specifically asked for).
> Does it?
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> Stefan Winter
> 
>>
>> Thanks.  -- Enke
>>
>> On 4/26/17 5:43 AM, Stefan Winter wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>>
>>> we keep hearing assertions on the list that change is needed regarding
>>> the ID field in RADIUS.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would like to recall RFC2865's section 2.5
>>>
>>>
>>> "If a
>>>
>>>    NAS needs more than 256 IDs for outstanding requests, it MAY use
>>>    additional source ports to send requests from, and keep track of IDs
>>>    for each source port.  This allows up to 16 million or so outstanding
>>>    requests at one time to a single server."
>>>
>>>
>>> It's fairly clear that implementations which do not follow the MAY will
>>> run into exhaustion problems rather soon.
>>>
>>> It's less clear that implementations which do follow this MAY still do.
>>> We've heard finger-in-the-air calculations on the list that this may
>>> become a problem earlier than one might think. But is there actual
>>> evidence to that end in deployed reality?
>>>
>>> Can someone please share their experience regarding a deployment and
>>> implementation which DOES implement the MAY above but STILL runs out of
>>> RADIUS packet IDs?
>>>
>>> Obviously, for those implementors which do not implement the MAY, the
>>> suggestion would be to implement that before trying to make protocol
>>> changes. The corresponding advice in RFC2865 may be 17 years old now,
>>> but that doesn't mean it is not good advice.
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> Stefan Winter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> radext mailing list
>>> radext@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext
>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> radext mailing list
> radext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext
>