Subject: Question on Status-Server document and CoA port

From: Alan DeKok <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:27:12 -0600

One issue with the current draft was brought up in the WG meeting
yesterday.  The draft proposes that when RADIUS servers start, they send
Status-Server packets to any NASes that have a CoA port defined.  This
procedure can be used by the NAS to determine that the server is up,
potentially increasing network stability.

  This behavior, however, is not part of the traditional implementations
of Status-Server.  It was suggested at the least IETF by Glen, and added
to the document after that.

  If the server has many NASes configured, it may send tens, or possibly
hundreds of packets on startup.  It would seem reasonable to add a
suggestion to use jitter, though the current draft doesn't suggest that.

  Should the document be updated to suggest jitter, or should the text
relating to CoA be deleted entirely?

  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: "Greg Weber" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:25:54 -0500

I am confused about how this WG item is being pursued.
The WG charter milestone says the document will be
submitted as a Proposed Standard, but it has been submitted
as Informational (non-standards track).

Can someone clarify whether the purpose is to:
1) Document the original TAOS & CVX implementations from 9-10 yrs back
as Informational.
2) Add a bunch of new stuff (CoA) which should probably make this Experimental.
3) Develop something on the standards track complete with WG consensus.
4) Something else??

Sorry if this was covered in the WG mtg this week -did not attend.
[I'd pick 1) above.]

Greg

---

From: Alan DeKok <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 17:28:48 +0100

> as Informational (non-standards track).

  That's likely a typo left over from it originating as an individual
submission.

> 1) Document the original TAOS & CVX implementations from 9-10 yrs back

  Document, yes.

> 2) Add a bunch of new stuff (CoA) which should probably make this Experimental.

  This was discussed in Dublin && in Minneapolis.  The suggestion in
Dublin was to add CoA.  The suggestion in Minneapolis was to remove it.

  I've asked that the WG respond on this issue.  If there's WG consensus
to remove it, it's gone.

  Alan DeKok.

---

From: "Greg Weber" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:22:16 -0500

> relating to CoA be deleted entirely?

I would suggest to remove this text unless you want to pursue it
on the Experimental track.  At least, I would think any watchdog
traffic should be on the same port/addr path as the signaling traffic
that it's trying to protect, in order to avoid firewall changes in the POP.
You are trying to see if the NAS can initiate authentication/accounting,
right, not if the DAS is operating?  It just seems like you are trying
to recreate the Status-Client behavior by using Status-Server on the
CoA port.

Greg

---

From: Alan DeKok <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:47:13 +0100

Greg Weber wrote:
> on the Experimental track.

  Fine by me.

>  At least, I would think any watchdog

  What does that mean?  CoA packets *are* signaling traffic.  If normal
CoA packets can get from the RADIUS server to the NAS, then this (ab)use
of Status-Server should work, too.

> right, not if the DAS is operating?

  No.  The idea was to (1) signal to the NAS that the RADIUS server was
alive, and (2) see if the NAS (or dynamic authorization server) was
operating.

>  It just seems like you are trying

  Quite possibly.

  Alan DeKok.