Re: [radext] WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-bigger-packets-01

Sam Hartman <> Wed, 22 October 2014 15:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FBDB1ACCF3 for <>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 08:01:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K3BbtkUQF5Gm for <>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 08:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94F7E1ACD3A for <>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 08:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 176D22037B; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 11:00:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MLo45P8DzggG; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 11:00:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 11:00:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 064EA81368; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 11:01:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <>
To: Alan DeKok <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 11:01:25 -0400
In-Reply-To: <> (Alan DeKok's message of "Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:54:33 -0400")
Message-ID: <>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Cc: "" <>, Jouni Korhonen <>, Stefan Winter <>
Subject: Re: [radext] WGLC for draft-ietf-radext-bigger-packets-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: RADIUS EXTensions working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 15:01:44 -0000

>>>>> "Alan" == Alan DeKok <> writes:

    Alan>   That might be hard work, if the client is sending 100's of
    Alan> 1000's of packets.  The packets will be sorted by socket, IPs,
    Alan> ports, etc.  Not by size.

You know the socket and port.
You're trying to sort between one accounting request and one
access-request with id 1.
That seems relatively easy.

    Alan>   I'd prefer to not overload Access-Reject or
    Alan> Accounting-Response.  Those are for *normal* situations.
    Alan> i.e. they do signaling for users, not for protocol errors.

Also, they get proxied, and we don't want that here (I don't think)

    Alan>   That means we need a new packet code.

    Alan>   TBH, the simplest thing would be to include the original
    Alan> packet code in a new attribute.  That way the peer receiving
    Alan> the packet knows how to find the original.  It can match code,
    Alan> src/dst IP, src/dst port.

    Alan>   And change the name of the packet code. A generic name is
    Alan> much prettier than a specific one.

    Alan>   i.e.:

    Alan> Packet code == Protocol-Error Attribute-TBD = Access-Request
    Alan> Error-Cause = Packet-Too-Big Response-Length = 8192

    Alan>   The packet signing rules should be the same as for
    Alan> Access-Accept, I think.  i.e. copy the original vector to the
    Alan> response vector and sign.  Even if the original was
    Alan> Accounting-Request.

    Alan>   I think that's simple, has minimal changes to the document,
    Alan> and has minimal changes to existing implementations.

I'm happy with that solutionn.