Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsec-protect-control-plane-04

["Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[e-mail]>]

Glen,

Thanks much for your review. 
Please see inline. 

Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro.

On Dec 14, 2010, at 8:26 AM, "Joe Abley" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> On 2010-12-14, at 01:39, Glen Zorn wrote:
> 
>> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
>> effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
>> comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area
>> directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just
>> like any other last call comments.
>> 
>> Section 3.1 says:
>> 
>>  o  Permit RADIUS authentication and accounting replies from RADIUS
>>     servers 198.51.100.9, 198.51.100.10, 2001:DB8:100::9, and 2001:
>>     DB8:100::10 that are listening on UDP ports 1645 and 1646.  Note
>>     that this doesn't account for a server using Internet Assigned
>>     Numbers Authority (IANA) ports 1812 and 1813 for RADIUS.
>> 
>> So, in other words, RADIUS traffic on the ports (officially assigned for
>> more than ten years now) will be blocked.  This seems like a very poor
>> example.

Please note that this was intentional, as a doc produced in Opsec we intended to make it as close to the operational reality we know as possible. And our perspective was that we see more 1645/1646. 

We can change it, sure. But just for the record this was discussed and intentionally decided.

If our argument was "let's write what we see is in use", what's the operational argument for 1812/1813, or is that you think IANA's assigned is inuse more ubiquitously?

> 
> This is a cisco-ism -- cisco devices use 1645/1646 by default and have to be configured explicitly to use 1812/1813.

For the record it's not only cisco that defaults to the "tradition" ports. Juniper listens on both, others also. 

> I think this should be changed, as you intimate.

Ok. 

Thanks,

Carlos. 

> Good catch.
> 
> 
> Joe
>