Subject: Re: Questions on TCP port usage for RADIUS/TLS

From: Alan DeKok <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 17:02:52 +0100

Stefan Winter wrote:
> So, there is a good reasoning on why three distinct ports would make
> sense. The only problem is: none of the existing implementations does it
> that way; so there is no running code yet. The question thus is:

  IIRC, the implementations are capable of listening on multiple ports
at the same time.  This allows then to listen on 3 ports, even if they
*also* accept all packet codes on each of those ports.

> ** As an implementor, do you think changing the spec towards three
> separate ports is reasonable, and do you think you would adapt your
> implementation? **

  I prefer fewer ports.  Adapting the implementation is easier than
adapting the spec. :)

> ** If you had to choose between the aforementioned decision points a) or
> b) , which one would you prefer as an implementor? **

  I'd prefer to re-use TCP/1812, TCP/1813, and TCP/3699 for TLS.

  Alan DeKok.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>

---

From: Mike McCauley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 08:16:57 +1000

Hi,

I agree with Alan on all points.

Cheers.

-- 
Mike McCauley                               [email-masked]
Open System Consultants Pty. Ltd
9 Bulbul Place Currumbin Waters QLD 4223 Australia   http://www.open.com.au
Phone +61 7 5598-7474                       Fax   +61 7 5598-7070

Radiator: the most portable, flexible and configurable RADIUS server 
anywhere. SQL, proxy, DBM, files, LDAP, NIS+, password, NT, Emerald, 
Platypus, Freeside, TACACS+, PAM, external, Active Directory, EAP, TLS, 
TTLS, PEAP, TNC, WiMAX, RSA, Vasco, Yubikey, MOTP, HOTP, TOTP,
DIAMETER etc. Full source on Unix, Windows, MacOSX, Solaris, VMS, NetWare etc.