|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 6158
RADIUS Design Guidelines
Last modified on Saturday, March 12th, 2011
 Permanent link to RFC 6158
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 6158
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 6158
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. DeKok, Ed.
Request for Comments: 6158 FreeRADIUS
BCP: 158 G. Weber
Category: Best Current Practice Individual Contributor
ISSN: 2070-1721 March 2011
RADIUS Design Guidelines
 Abstract
This document provides guidelines for the design of attributes used
by the Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) protocol.
It is expected that these guidelines will prove useful to authors and
reviewers of future RADIUS attribute specifications, within the IETF
as well as other Standards Development Organizations (SDOs).
Status of This Memo
This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6158.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 1 
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................3
1.1. Terminology ................................................4
1.2. Requirements Language ......................................4
1.3. Applicability ..............................................5
1.3.1. Reviews .............................................5
2. Guidelines ......................................................6
2.1. Data Types .................................................8
2.2. Vendor Space ...............................................9
2.3. Service Definitions and RADIUS .............................9
2.4. Translation of Vendor Specifications ......................10
3. Rationale ......................................................11
3.1. RADIUS Operational Model ..................................11
3.2. Data Model Issues .........................................14
3.2.1. Issues with Definitions of Types ...................15
3.2.2. Tagging Mechanism ..................................16
3.2.3. Complex Data Types .................................16
3.2.4. Complex Data Type Exceptions .......................18
3.3. Vendor Space ..............................................19
3.3.1. Interoperability Considerations ....................20
3.3.2. Vendor Allocations .................................20
3.3.3. SDO Allocations ....................................20
3.4. Polymorphic Attributes ....................................21
4. IANA Considerations ............................................22
5. Security Considerations ........................................22
5.1. New Data Types and Complex Attributes .....................23
6. References .....................................................24
6.1. Normative References ......................................24
6.2. Informative References ....................................24
Appendix A. Design Guidelines Checklist ..........................27
A.1. Types Matching the RADIUS Data Model ......................27
A.1.1. Transport of Basic Data Types ........................27
A.1.2. Transport of Authentication and Security Data ........27
A.1.3. Opaque Data Types ....................................27
A.1.4. Pre-existing Data Types ..............................28
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 2
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
A.2. Improper Data Types .......................................28
A.2.1. Simple Data Types ....................................28
A.2.2. More Complex Data Types ..............................29
A.3. Vendor-Specific Formats ...................................29
A.4. Changes to the RADIUS Operational Model ...................30
A.5. Allocation of Attributes ..................................31
Appendix B. Complex Attributes ...................................32
B.1. CHAP-Password .............................................32
B.2. CHAP-Challenge ............................................32
B.3. Tunnel-Password ...........................................33
B.4. ARAP-Password .............................................33
B.5. ARAP-Features .............................................34
B.6. Connect-Info ..............................................34
B.7. Framed-IPv6-Prefix ........................................35
B.8. Egress-VLANID .............................................36
B.9. Egress-VLAN-Name ..........................................37
B.10. Digest-* .................................................37
Acknowledgments ...................................................37
1. Introduction
This document provides guidelines for the design of Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) attributes within the
IETF as well as within other Standards Development Organizations
(SDOs). By articulating RADIUS design guidelines, it is hoped that
this document will encourage the development and publication of high-
quality RADIUS attribute specifications.
However, the advice in this document will not be helpful unless it is
put to use. As with "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of MIB
Documents" [RFC 4181], it is expected that authors will check their
document against the guidelines in this document prior to publication
or requesting review (such as an "Expert Review" described in
[RFC 3575]). Similarly, it is expected that this document will be
used by reviewers (such as WG participants or the Authentication,
Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Doctors [DOCTORS]), resulting in
an improvement in the consistency of reviews.
In order to meet these objectives, this document needs to cover not
only the science of attribute design but also the art. Therefore, in
addition to covering the most frequently encountered issues, this
document explains some of the considerations motivating the
guidelines. These considerations include complexity trade-offs that
make it difficult to provide "hard and fast" rules for attribute
design. This document explains those trade-offs through reviews of
current attribute usage.
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 3
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
The rest of the document is organized as follows. Section 1
discusses the applicability of the guidelines and defines a
recommended review process for RADIUS specifications. Section 2
defines the design guidelines in terms of what is "RECOMMENDED" and
"NOT RECOMMENDED". Section 3 gives a longer explanation of the
rationale behind the guidelines given in the previous section.
Appendix A repeats the guidelines in a "checklist" format. Appendix
B discusses previously defined attributes that do not follow the
guidelines.
Authors of new RADIUS specifications can be compliant with the design
guidelines by working through the checklists given in Appendix A.
Reviewers of RADIUS specifications are expected to be familiar with
the entire document.
1.1. Terminology
This document uses the following terms:
Network Access Server (NAS)
A device that provides an access service for a user to a network.
RADIUS server
A RADIUS authentication, authorization, and accounting (AAA)
server is an entity that provides one or more AAA services to a
NAS.
Standard space
Codes in the RADIUS Attribute Type Space that are allocated by
IANA and that follow the format defined in Section 5 of RFC 2865
[RFC 2865].
Vendor space
The contents of the Vendor-Specific Attribute (VSA), as defined in
[RFC 2865], Section 5.26. These attributes provide a unique
attribute type space in the "String" field for each vendor
(identified by the Vendor-Type field), which they can self-
allocate.
1.2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119].
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 4
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
1.3. Applicability
The advice in this document applies to RADIUS attributes used to
encode service-provisioning, authentication, or accounting data based
on the attribute encodings and data formats defined in RFC 2865
[RFC 2865], RFC 2866 [RFC 2866], and subsequent RADIUS RFCs.
Since this document represents a Best Current Practice, it does not
update or deprecate existing standards. As a result, uses of the
terms "MUST" and "MUST NOT" are limited to requirements already
present in existing documents.
It is RECOMMENDED that these guidelines be followed for all new
RADIUS specifications, whether they originate from a vendor, an SDO,
or the IETF. Doing so will ensure the widest possible applicability
and interoperability of the specifications, while requiring minimal
changes to existing systems. In particular, it is expected that
RADIUS specifications requesting allocation within the standard space
will follow these guidelines and will explain why this is not
possible if they cannot.
However, there are situations in which vendors or SDOs can choose not
to follow these guidelines without major consequences. As noted in
Section 5.26 of [RFC 2865], Vendor-Specific Attributes (VSAs) are
"available to allow vendors to support their own extended Attributes
not suitable for general usage". Where vendors or SDOs develop
specifications "not suitable for general usage", limited
interoperability and inability to use existing implementations may be
acceptable, and, in these situations, vendors and SDOs MAY choose not
to conform to these guidelines.
Note that the RADEXT WG is currently (as of 2011) involved in
developing updates to RADIUS. Those updates will provide their own
usage guidelines that may modify some of the guidelines defined here,
such as defining new data types, practices, etc.
RADIUS protocol changes, or specification of attributes (such as
Service-Type), that can, in effect, provide new RADIUS commands
require greater expertise and deeper review, as do changes to the
RADIUS operational model. As a result, such changes are outside the
scope of this document and MUST NOT be undertaken outside the IETF.
1.3.1. Reviews
For specifications utilizing attributes within the standard space,
conformance with the design guidelines in this document is expected
unless a good case can be made for an exception. Reviewers SHOULD
use the design guidelines as a review checklist.
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 5
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
While not required, IETF review may also be beneficial for
specifications utilizing the vendor space. Experience has shown that
attributes not originally designed for general usage can subsequently
garner wide-spread deployment. An example is the Vendor-Specific
Attributes defined in [RFC 2548], which have been widely implemented
within IEEE 802.11 Access Points.
In order to assist in the development of specifications conforming to
these guidelines, authors can request review by sending an email to
the AAA Doctors [DOCTORS] or equivalent mailing list. The IETF
Operations & Management Area Directors will then arrange for the
review to be completed and posted to the AAA Doctors mailing list
[DOCTORS], RADEXT WG mailing list, or other IETF mailing lists.
Since reviews are handled by volunteers, responses are provided on a
best-effort basis, with no service-level guarantees. Authors are
encouraged to seek review as early as possible, so as to avoid
potential delays.
As reviewers require access to the specification, vendors and SDOs
are encouraged to make it publicly available. Where the RADIUS
specification is embedded within a larger document that cannot be
made public, the RADIUS attribute and value definitions can be made
available on a public web site or can be published as an
Informational RFC, as with [RFC 4679].
The review process requires neither allocation of attributes within
the standard space nor publication of an RFC. Requiring SDOs or
vendors to rehost VSAs into the standard space solely for the purpose
of obtaining review would put pressure on the standard space and may
be harmful to interoperability since it would create two ways to
provision the same service. Rehosting may also require changes to
the RADIUS data model, which will affect implementations that do not
intend to support the SDO or vendor specifications.
Similarly, vendors are encouraged to make their specifications
publicly available, for maximum interoperability. However, it is not
necessary for a vendor to request publication of a VSA specification
as an RFC.
2. Guidelines
The RADIUS protocol as defined in [RFC 2865] and [RFC 2866] uses
elements known as attributes in order to represent authentication,
authorization, and accounting data.
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 6
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
Unlike Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP), first defined in
[RFC 1157] and [RFC 1155], RADIUS does not define a formal data
definition language. The data type of RADIUS attributes is not
transported on the wire. Rather, the data type of a RADIUS attribute
is fixed when an attribute is defined. Based on the RADIUS attribute
type code, RADIUS clients and servers can determine the data type
based on pre-configured entries within a data dictionary.
To explain the implications of this early RADIUS design decision, we
distinguish two kinds of data types, namely "basic" and "complex".
Basic data types use one of the existing RADIUS data types as defined
in Section 2.1, encapsulated in a [RFC 2865] RADIUS attribute or in a
[RFC 2865] RADIUS VSA. All other data formats are "complex types".
RADIUS attributes can be classified into one of three broad
categories:
* Attributes that are of interest to a single vendor, e.g., for a
product or product line. Minimal cross-vendor interoperability
is needed.
Vendor-Specific Attributes (VSAs) are appropriate for use in
this situation. Code-point allocation is managed by the vendor
with the vendor space defined by their Private Enterprise Number
(PEN), as given in the Vendor-Id field.
* Attributes that are of interest to an industry segment, where an
SDO defines the attributes for that industry. Multi-vendor
interoperability within an industry segment is expected.
Vendor-Specific Attributes (VSAs) MUST be used. Code-point
allocation is managed by the SDO with the vendor space defined
by the SDO's PEN rather than the PEN of an individual vendor.
* Attributes that are of broad interest to the Internet community.
Multi-vendor interoperability is expected.
Attributes within the standard space are appropriate for this
purpose and are allocated via IANA as described in [RFC 3575].
Since the standard space represents a finite resource, and is
the only attribute space available for use by IETF working
groups, vendors, and SDOs are encouraged to utilize the vendor
space rather than request allocation of attributes from the
standard space. Usage of attribute type codes reserved for
standard attributes is considered antisocial behavior and is
strongly discouraged.
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 7
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
2.1. Data Types
RADIUS defines a limited set of data types, defined as "basic data
types". The following data qualifies as "basic data types":
* 32-bit unsigned integer in network byte order.
* Enumerated data types, represented as a 32-bit unsigned integer
with a list of name to value mappings (e.g., Service-Type).
* IPv4 address in network byte order.
* Time as a 32-bit unsigned value in network byte order and in
seconds since 00:00:00 UTC, January 1, 1970.
* IPv6 address in network byte order.
* Interface-Id (8-octet string in network byte order).
* IPv6 prefix.
* String (i.e., binary data), totaling 253 octets or less in
length. This includes the opaque encapsulation of data
structures defined outside of RADIUS. See also Appendix A.1.3
for additional discussion.
* UTF-8 text [RFC 3629], totaling 253 octets or less in length.
Note that the length limitations for VSAs of type String and Text are
less than 253 octets, due to the additional overhead of the Vendor-
Specific encoding.
The following data also qualifies as "basic data types":
* Attributes grouped into a logical container using the [RFC 2868]
tagging mechanism. This approach is NOT RECOMMENDED (see
Section 3.2.2) but is permissible where the alternatives are
worse.
* Attributes requiring the transport of more than 253 octets of
Text or String data. This includes the opaque encapsulation of
data structures defined outside of RADIUS, e.g., EAP-Message.
All other data formats (including nested attributes) are defined to
be "complex data types" and are NOT RECOMMENDED for normal use.
Complex data types MAY be used in situations where they reduce
complexity in non-RADIUS systems or where using the basic data types
would be awkward (such as where grouping would be required in order
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 8
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
to link related attributes). Since there are no "hard and fast"
rules for where complexity is best located, each situation has to be
decided on a case-by-case basis. Examples of this trade-off are
discussed in Appendix B. Where a complex data type is selected, an
explanation SHOULD be offered as to why this was necessary.
2.2. Vendor Space
The Vendor space is defined to be the contents of the Vendor-Specific
Attribute ([RFC 2865], Section 5.26) where the Vendor-Id defines the
space for a particular vendor, and the contents of the "String" field
define a unique attribute type space for that vendor. As discussed
there, it is intended for vendors and SDOs to support their own
attributes not suitable for general use.
While the encoding of attributes within the vendor space is under the
control of vendors and SDOs, following the guidelines described here
is advantageous since it enables maximum interoperability with
minimal changes to existing systems.
For example, RADIUS server support for new attributes using "basic
data types" can typically be accomplished by editing a RADIUS
dictionary, whereas "complex data types" typically require RADIUS
server code changes, which can add complexity and delays in
implementation.
Vendor RADIUS Attribute specifications SHOULD self-allocate
attributes from the vendor space rather than request an allocation
from within the standard space.
VSA encodings that do not follow the [RFC 2865], Section 5.26 encoding
scheme are NOT RECOMMENDED. Although [RFC 2865] does not mandate it,
implementations commonly assume that the Vendor Id can be used as a
key to determine the on-the-wire encoding of a VSA. Vendors
therefore SHOULD NOT use multiple encodings for VSAs that are
associated with a particular Vendor Id. A vendor wishing to use
multiple VSA encodings SHOULD request one Vendor Id for each VSA
encoding that they will use.
2.3. Service Definitions and RADIUS
RADIUS specifications define how an existing service or protocol can
be provisioned using RADIUS, usually via the Service-Type Attribute.
Therefore, it is expected that a RADIUS attribute specification will
reference documents defining the protocol or service to be
provisioned. Within the IETF, a RADIUS attribute specification
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 9
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
SHOULD NOT be used to define the protocol or service being
provisioned. New services using RADIUS for provisioning SHOULD be
defined elsewhere and referenced in the RADIUS specification.
New attributes, or new values of existing attributes, SHOULD NOT be
used to define new RADIUS commands. RADIUS attributes are intended
to:
* authenticate users
* authorize users (i.e., service provisioning or changes to
provisioning)
* account for user activity (i.e., logging of session activity)
Requirements for allocation of new commands (i.e., the Code field in
the packet header) and new attributes within the standard space are
described in [RFC 3575], Section 2.1.
2.4. Translation of Vendor Specifications
[RFC 2865], Section 5.26 defines Vendor-Specific Attributes as
follows:
This Attribute is available to allow vendors to support their own
extended Attributes not suitable for general usage. It MUST NOT
affect the operation of the RADIUS protocol.
Servers not equipped to interpret the vendor-specific information
sent by a client MUST ignore it (although it may be reported).
Clients which do not receive desired vendor-specific information
SHOULD make an attempt to operate without it, although they may do
so (and report they are doing so) in a degraded mode.
The limitation on changes to the RADIUS protocol effectively
prohibits VSAs from changing fundamental aspects of RADIUS operation,
such as modifying RADIUS packet sequences or adding new commands.
However, the requirement for clients and servers to be able to
operate in the absence of VSAs has proven to be less of a constraint
since it is still possible for a RADIUS client and server to mutually
indicate support for VSAs, after which behavior expectations can be
reset.
Therefore, RFC 2865 provides considerable latitude for development of
new attributes within the vendor space, while prohibiting development
of protocol variants. This flexibility implies that RADIUS
attributes can often be developed within the vendor space without
loss (and possibly even with gain) in functionality.
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 10
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
As a result, translation of RADIUS attributes developed within the
vendor space into the standard space may provide only modest
benefits, while accelerating the exhaustion of the standard space.
We do not expect that all RADIUS attribute specifications requiring
interoperability will be developed within the IETF, and allocated
from the standard space. A more scalable approach is to recognize
the flexibility of the vendor space, while working toward
improvements in the quality and availability of RADIUS attribute
specifications, regardless of where they are developed.
It is therefore NOT RECOMMENDED that specifications intended solely
for use by a vendor or SDO be translated into the standard space.
3. Rationale
This section outlines the rationale behind the above recommendations.
3.1. RADIUS Operational Model
The RADIUS operational model includes several assumptions:
* The RADIUS protocol is stateless.
* Provisioning of services is not possible within an Access-Reject
or Disconnect-Request.
* There is a distinction between authorization checks and user
authentication.
* The protocol provides for authentication and integrity
protection of packets.
* The RADIUS protocol is a Request/Response protocol.
* The protocol defines packet length restrictions.
While RADIUS server implementations may keep state, the RADIUS
protocol is stateless, although information may be passed from one
protocol transaction to another via the State Attribute. As a
result, documents that require stateful protocol behavior without use
of the State Attribute are inherently incompatible with RADIUS as
defined in [RFC 2865] and MUST be redesigned. See [RFC 5080], Section
2.1.1 for additional discussion surrounding the use of the State
Attribute.
As noted in [RFC 5080], Section 2.6, the intent of an Access-Reject is
to deny access to the requested service. As a result, RADIUS does
not allow the provisioning of services within an Access-Reject or
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 11
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
Disconnect-Request. Documents that include provisioning of services
within an Access-Reject or Disconnect-Request are inherently
incompatible with RADIUS and need to be redesigned.
[RFC 5176], Section 3 notes the following:
A Disconnect-Request MUST contain only NAS and session
identification attributes. If other attributes are included in a
Disconnect-Request, implementations MUST send a Disconnect-NAK; an
Error-Cause Attribute with value "Unsupported Attribute" MAY be
included.
As a result, documents that include provisioning of services within a
Disconnect-Request are inherently incompatible with RADIUS and need
to be redesigned.
As noted in [RFC 5080], Section 2.1.1, a RADIUS Access-Request may not
contain user authentication attributes or a State Attribute linking
the Access-Request to an earlier user authentication. Such an
Access-Request, known as an authorization check, provides no
assurance that it corresponds to a live user. RADIUS specifications
defining attributes containing confidential information (such as
Tunnel-Password) should be careful to prohibit such attributes from
being returned in response to an authorization check. Also,
[RFC 5080], Section 2.1.1 notes that authentication mechanisms need to
tie a sequence of Access-Request/Access-Challenge packets together
into one authentication session. The State Attribute is RECOMMENDED
for this purpose.
While [RFC 2865] did not require authentication and integrity
protection of RADIUS Access-Request packets, subsequent
authentication mechanism specifications, such as RADIUS/EAP [RFC 3579]
and Digest Authentication [RFC 5090], have mandated authentication and
integrity protection for certain RADIUS packets. [RFC 5080], Section
2.1.1 makes this behavior RECOMMENDED for all Access-Request packets,
including Access-Request packets performing authorization checks. It
is expected that specifications for new RADIUS authentication
mechanisms will continue this practice.
The RADIUS protocol as defined in [RFC 2865] is a request-response
protocol spoken between RADIUS clients and servers. A single RADIUS
request packet ([RFC 2865], [RFC 2866], or [RFC 5176]) will solicit in
response at most a single response packet, sent to the IP address and
port of the RADIUS client that originated the request. Changes to
this model are likely to require major revisions to existing
implementations, and this practice is NOT RECOMMENDED.
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 12
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
The Length field in the RADIUS packet header is defined in [RFC 2865]
Section 3. It is noted there that the maximum length of a RADIUS
packet is 4096 octets. As a result, attribute designers SHOULD NOT
assume that a RADIUS implementation can successfully process RADIUS
packets larger than 4096 octets.
Even when packets are less than 4096 octets, they may be larger than
the Path Maximum Transmission Unit (PMTU). Any packet larger than
the PMTU will be fragmented, making communications more brittle as
firewalls and filtering devices often discard fragments. Transport
of fragmented UDP packets appears to be a poorly tested code path on
network devices. Some devices appear to be incapable of transporting
fragmented UDP packets, making it difficult to deploy RADIUS in a
network where those devices are deployed. We RECOMMEND that RADIUS
messages be kept as small possible.
If a situation is envisaged where it may be necessary to carry
authentication, authorization, or accounting data in a packet larger
than 4096 octets, then one of the following approaches is
RECOMMENDED:
1. Utilization of a sequence of packets.
For RADIUS authentication, a sequence of Access-
Request/Access-Challenge packets would be used. For this to
be feasible, attribute designers need to enable inclusion of
attributes that can consume considerable space within Access-
Challenge packets. To maintain compatibility with existing
NASes, either the use of Access-Challenge packets needs to be
permissible (as with RADIUS/EAP, defined in [RFC 3579]) or
support for receipt of an Access-Challenge needs to be
indicated by the NAS (as in RADIUS Location [RFC 5580]). Also,
the specification needs to clearly describe how attribute
splitting is to be signaled and how attributes included within
the sequence are to be interpreted, without requiring stateful
operation. Unfortunately, previous specifications have not
always exhibited the required foresight. For example, even
though very large filter rules are conceivable, the NAS-
Filter-Rule Attribute defined in [RFC 4849] is not permitted in
an Access-Challenge packet, nor is a mechanism specified to
allow a set of NAS-Filter-Rule Attributes to be split across
an Access-Request/Access-Challenge sequence.
In the case of RADIUS accounting, transporting large amounts
of data would require a sequence of Accounting-Request
packets. This is a non-trivial change to RADIUS, since RADIUS
accounting clients would need to be modified to split the
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 13
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
attribute stream across multiple Accounting-Requests, and
billing servers would need to be modified to reassemble and
interpret the attribute stream.
2. Utilization of names rather than values.
Where an attribute relates to a policy that could conceivably
be pre-provisioned on the NAS, then the name of the pre-
provisioned policy can be transmitted in an attribute rather
than the policy itself, which could be quite large. An
example of this is the Filter-Id Attribute defined in
[RFC 2865], Section 5.11, which enables a set of pre-
provisioned filter rules to be referenced by name.
3. Utilization of Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery
techniques, as specified in [RFC 4821].
As a last resort, where the above techniques cannot be made to
work, it may be possible to apply the techniques described in
[RFC 4821] to discover the maximum supported RADIUS packet size
on the path between a RADIUS client and a home server. While
such an approach can avoid the complexity of utilization of a
sequence of packets, dynamic discovery is likely to be time
consuming and cannot be guaranteed to work with existing
RADIUS implementations. As a result, this technique is not
generally applicable.
3.2. Data Model Issues
While [RFC 2865], Section 5 defines basic data types, later
specifications did not follow this practice. This problem has led
implementations to define their own names for data types, resulting
in non-standard names for those types.
In addition, the number of vendors and SDOs creating new attributes
within the vendor space has grown, and this has led to some
divergence in approaches to RADIUS attribute design. For example,
vendors and SDOs have evolved the data model to support functions
such as new data types along with attribute grouping and attribute
fragmentation, with different groups taking different approaches.
These approaches are often incompatible, leading to additional
complexity in RADIUS implementations.
In order to avoid repeating old mistakes, this section describes the
history of the RADIUS data model and attempts to codify existing
practices.
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 14
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
3.2.1. Issues with Definitions of Types
[RFC 2865], Section 5 explicitly defines five data types: text,
string, address, integer, and time. Both the names and
interpretations of the types are given.
Subsequent RADIUS specifications defined attributes by using type
names not defined in [RFC 2865], without defining the new names as
done in [RFC 2865]. They did not consistently indicate the format of
the value field using the same conventions as [RFC 2865]. As a
result, the data type is ambiguous in some cases and may not be
consistent among different implementations.
It is out of the scope of this document to resolve all potential
ambiguities within existing RADIUS specifications. However, in order
to prevent future ambiguities, it is RECOMMENDED that future RADIUS
attribute specifications explicitly define newly created data types
at the beginning of the document and indicate clearly the data type
to be used for each attribute.
For example, [RFC 3162] utilizes, but does not explicitly define, a
type that encapsulates an IPv6 address (Sections 2.1 and 2.4) and
another type that encapsulates an IPv6 prefix (Section 2.3). The
IPv6 address attributes confusingly are referenced as type "Address"
in the document. This is a similar name as the "address" type
defined in [RFC 2865], which was defined to refer solely to IPv4
addresses.
While the Framed-Interface-Id Attribute defined in [RFC 3162], Section
2.2 included a value field of 8 octets, the data type was not
explicitly indicated; therefore, there is controversy over whether
the format of the data was intended to be an 8-octet String or
whether a special Interface-Id type was intended.
Given that attributes encapsulating an IPv6 address and an IPv6
prefix are already in use, it is RECOMMENDED that RADIUS server
implementations include support for these as basic types, in addition
to the types defined in [RFC 2865]. Where the intent is to represent
a specific IPv6 address, an "IPv6 address" type SHOULD be used.
Although it is possible to use an "IPv6 Prefix" type with a prefix
length of 128 to represent an IPv6 address, this usage is NOT
RECOMMENDED. Implementations supporting the Framed-Interface-Id
Attribute may select a data type of their choosing (most likely an
8-octet String or a special "Interface Id" data type).
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 15
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
It is worth noting that since RADIUS only supports unsigned integers
of 32 bits, attributes using signed integer data types or unsigned
integer types of other sizes will require code changes and SHOULD be
avoided.
For [RFC 2865] RADIUS VSAs, the length limitation of the String and
Text types is 247 octets instead of 253 octets, due to the additional
overhead of the Vendor-Specific Attribute.
3.2.2. Tagging Mechanism
[RFC 2868] defines an attribute grouping mechanism based on the use of
a one-octet tag value. Tunnel attributes that refer to the same
tunnel are grouped together by virtue of using the same tag value.
This tagging mechanism has some drawbacks. There are a limited
number of unique tags (31). The tags are not well suited for use
with arbitrary binary data values because it is not always possible
to tell if the first byte after the Length is the tag or the first
byte of the untagged value (assuming the tag is optional).
Other limitations of the tagging mechanism are that when integer
values are tagged, the value portion is reduced to three bytes,
meaning only 24-bit numbers can be represented. The tagging
mechanism does not offer an ability to create nested groups of
attributes. Some RADIUS implementations treat tagged attributes as
having the additional data types tagged-string and tagged-integer.
These types increase the complexity of implementing and managing
RADIUS systems.
For these reasons, the tagging scheme described in RFC 2868 is NOT
RECOMMENDED for use as a generic grouping mechanism.
3.2.3. Complex Data Types
As described in this section, the creation of complex types can lead
to interoperability and deployment issues, so they need to be
introduced with care. For example, the RADIUS attribute encoding is
summarized in [RFC 2865]:
0 1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
| Type | Length | Value ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 16
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
However, some standard attributes pack multiple sub-fields into the
"Value" field, resulting in the creation a non-standard, i.e.,
complex, type. Separating these sub-fields into different
attributes, each with its own type and length, would have the
following benefits:
* When manual data entry is required, it is easier for an
administrator to enter the data as well-known types rather than
as complex structures.
* It enables additional error checking by leveraging the parsing
and validation routines for well-known types.
* It simplifies implementations by eliminating special-case,
attribute-specific parsing.
One of the fundamental goals of the RADIUS protocol design was to
allow RADIUS servers to be configured to support new attributes,
without requiring server code changes. RADIUS server implementations
typically provide support for basic data types and define attributes
in a data dictionary. This architecture enables a new attribute to
be supported by the addition of a dictionary entry, without requiring
other RADIUS server code changes.
Code changes can also be required in policy management systems and in
the RADIUS server's receive path. These changes are due to
limitations in RADIUS server policy languages, which commonly provide
for limited operations (such as comparisons or arithmetic operations)
on the existing data types. Many existing RADIUS policy languages
typically are not capable of parsing sub-elements or providing more
sophisticated matching functionality.
On the RADIUS client, code changes are typically required in order to
implement a new attribute. The RADIUS client typically has to
compose the attribute dynamically when sending. When receiving, a
RADIUS client needs to be able to parse the attribute and carry out
the requested service. As a result, a detailed understanding of the
new attribute is required on clients, and data dictionaries are less
useful on clients than on servers.
Given these limitations, the introduction of new types can require
code changes on the RADIUS server, which would be unnecessary if
basic data types had been used instead. In addition, if "ad hoc"
types are used, attribute-specific parsing is required, which means
more complex software to develop and maintain. More complexity can
lead to more error-prone implementations, interoperability problems,
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 17
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
and even security vulnerabilities. These issues can increase costs
to network administrators as well as reduce reliability and introduce
deployment barriers.
3.2.4. Complex Data Type Exceptions
As described in Section 2.1, the introduction of complex data types
is discouraged where viable alternatives are available. A potential
exception is attributes that inherently require code changes on both
the client and server. For example, as described in Appendix B,
complex attributes have been used in situations involving
authentication and security attributes, which need to be dynamically
computed and verified. Supporting this functionality requires code
changes on both the RADIUS client and server, regardless of the
attribute format. As a result, in most cases, the use of complex
attributes to represent these methods is acceptable and does not
create additional interoperability or deployment issues.
Another exception to the recommendation against complex types is for
types that can be treated as opaque data by the RADIUS server. For
example, the EAP-Message Attribute, defined in [RFC 3579], Section
3.1, contains a complex data type that is an Extensible
Authentication Protocol (EAP) packet. Since these complex types do
not need to be parsed by the RADIUS server, the issues arising from
server limitations do not arise. Similarly, since attributes of
these complex types can be configured on the server using a data type
of String, dictionary limitations are also not encountered. Appendix
A.1 includes a series of checklists that may be used to analyze a
design for RECOMMENDED and NOT RECOMMENDED behavior in relation to
complex types.
If the RADIUS Server simply passes the contents of an attribute to
some non-RADIUS portion of the network, then the data is opaque to
RADIUS and SHOULD be defined to be of type String. A concrete way of
judging this requirement is whether or not the attribute definition
in the RADIUS document contains delineated fields for sub-parts of
the data. If those fields need to be delineated in RADIUS, then the
data is not opaque to RADIUS, and it SHOULD be separated into
individual RADIUS attributes.
An examination of existing RADIUS RFCs discloses a number of complex
attributes that have already been defined. Appendix B includes a
listing of complex attributes used within [RFC 2865], [RFC 2868],
[RFC 2869], [RFC 3162], [RFC 4818], and [RFC 4675]. The discussion of
these attributes includes reasons why a complex type is acceptable or
suggestions for how the attribute could have been defined to follow
the RADIUS data model.
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 18
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
In other cases, the data in the complex type are described textually
in a specification. This is possible because the data types are not
sent within the attributes but are a matter for endpoint
interpretation. An implementation can define additional data types
and use these data types today by matching them to the attribute's
textual definition.
3.3. Vendor Space
The usage model for RADIUS VSAs is described in [RFC 2865], Section
6.2:
Note that RADIUS defines a mechanism for Vendor-Specific
extensions (Attribute 26) and the use of that should be encouraged
instead of allocation of global attribute types, for functions
specific only to one vendor's implementation of RADIUS, where no
interoperability is deemed useful.
Nevertheless, many new attributes have been defined in the vendor
space in situations where interoperability is not only useful but is
required. For example, SDOs outside the IETF (such as the IEEE 802
and the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)) have been assigned
Vendor-Ids, enabling them to define their own VSA encoding and assign
Vendor types within their own vendor space, as defined by their
unique Vendor-Id.
The use of VSAs by SDOs outside the IETF has gained in popularity for
several reasons:
Efficiency
As with SNMP, which defines an "Enterprise" Object Identifier
(OID) space suitable for use by vendors as well as other SDOs, the
definition of Vendor-Specific Attributes has become a common
occurrence as part of standards activity outside the IETF. For
reasons of efficiency, it is easiest if the RADIUS attributes
required to manage a standard are developed within the same SDO
that develops the standard itself. As noted in "Transferring MIB
Work from IETF Bridge MIB WG to IEEE 802.1 WG" [RFC 4663], today
few vendors are willing to simultaneously fund individuals to
participate within an SDO to complete a standard as well as to
participate in the IETF in order to complete the associated RADIUS
attributes specification.
Attribute scarcity
The standard space is limited to 255 unique attributes. Of these,
only about half remain available for allocation. In the vendor
space, the number of attributes available is a function of the
encoding of the attribute (the size of the Vendor type field).
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 19
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
3.3.1. Interoperability Considerations
Vendors and SDOs are reminded that the standard space and the
enumerated value space for enumerated attributes are reserved for
allocation through work published via the IETF, as noted in
[RFC 3575], Section 2.1. In the past, some vendors and SDOs have
assigned vendor-specific meaning to "unused" values from the standard
space. This process results in interoperability issues and is
counterproductive. Similarly, the vendor-specific enumeration
practice discussed in [RFC 2882], Section 2.2.1 is NOT RECOMMENDED.
If it is not possible to follow the IETF process, vendors and SDOs
SHOULD self-allocate an attribute, which MUST be in their own vendor
space as defined by their unique Vendor-Id, as discussed in Sections
3.3.2 and 3.3.3.
The design and specification of VSAs for multi-vendor usage SHOULD be
undertaken with the same level of care as standard RADIUS attributes.
Specifically, the provisions of this document that apply to standard
RADIUS attributes also apply to VSAs for multi-vendor usage.
3.3.2. Vendor Allocations
As noted in [RFC 3575], Section 2.1, vendors are encouraged to utilize
VSAs to define functions "specific only to one vendor's
implementation of RADIUS, where no interoperability is deemed useful.
For functions specific only to one vendor's implementation of RADIUS,
the use of that should be encouraged instead of the allocation of
global attribute types".
The recommendation for vendors to allocate attributes from a vendor
space rather than via the IETF process is a recognition that vendors
desire to assert change control over their own RADIUS specifications.
This change control can be obtained by requesting a PEN from the
Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) for use as a Vendor-Id
within a Vendor-Specific Attribute. The vendor can then allocate
attributes within the vendor space defined by that Vendor-Id at their
sole discretion. Similarly, the use of data types (complex or
otherwise) within that vendor space is solely under the discretion of
the vendor.
3.3.3. SDO Allocations
Given the expanded utilization of RADIUS, it has become apparent that
requiring SDOs to accomplish all their RADIUS work within the IETF is
inherently inefficient and unscalable. It is therefore RECOMMENDED
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 20
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
that SDO RADIUS Attribute specifications allocate attributes from the
vendor space rather than request an allocation from the RADIUS
standard space for attributes matching any of the following criteria:
* Attributes relying on data types not defined within RADIUS
* Attributes intended primarily for use within an SDO
* Attributes intended primarily for use within a group of SDOs
Any new RADIUS attributes or values intended for interoperable use
across a broad spectrum of the Internet community SHOULD follow the
allocation process defined in [RFC 3575].
The recommendation for SDOs to allocate attributes from a vendor
space rather than via the IETF process is a recognition that SDOs
desire to assert change control over their own RADIUS specifications.
This change control can be obtained by requesting a PEN from the
Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) for use as a Vendor-Id
within a Vendor-Specific Attribute. The SDO can then allocate
attributes within the vendor space defined by that Vendor-Id at their
sole discretion. Similarly, the use of data types (complex or
otherwise) within that vendor space is solely under the discretion of
the SDO.
3.4. Polymorphic Attributes
A polymorphic attribute is one whose format or meaning is dynamic.
For example, rather than using a fixed data format, an attribute's
format might change based on the contents of another attribute. Or,
the meaning of an attribute may depend on earlier packets in a
sequence.
RADIUS server dictionary entries are typically static, enabling the
user to enter the contents of an attribute without support for
changing the format based on dynamic conditions. However, this
limitation on static types does not prevent implementations from
implementing policies that return different attributes based on the
contents of received attributes; this is a common feature of existing
RADIUS implementations.
In general, polymorphism is NOT RECOMMENDED. Polymorphism rarely
enables capabilities that would not be available through use of
multiple attributes. Polymorphism requires code changes in the
RADIUS server in situations where attributes with fixed formats would
not require such changes. Thus, polymorphism increases complexity
while decreasing generality, without delivering any corresponding
benefits.
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 21
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
Note that changing an attribute's format dynamically is not the same
thing as using a fixed format and computing the attribute itself
dynamically. RADIUS authentication attributes, such as User-
Password, EAP-Message, etc., while being computed dynamically, use a
fixed format.
4. IANA Considerations
This document has no action items for IANA. However, it does provide
guidelines for Expert Reviewers appointed as described in [RFC 3575].
5. Security Considerations
This specification provides guidelines for the design of RADIUS
attributes used in authentication, authorization, and accounting.
Threats and security issues for this application are described in
[RFC 3579] and [RFC 3580]; security issues encountered in roaming are
described in [RFC 2607].
Obfuscation of RADIUS attributes on a per-attribute basis is
necessary in some cases. The current standard mechanism for this is
described in [RFC 2865], Section 5.2 (for obscuring User-Password
values) and is based on the MD5 algorithm specified in [RFC 1321].
The MD5 and SHA-1 algorithms have recently become a focus of scrutiny
and concern in security circles, and as a result, the use of these
algorithms in new attributes is NOT RECOMMENDED. In addition,
previous documents referred to this method as generating "encrypted"
data. This terminology is no longer accepted within the
cryptographic community.
Where new RADIUS attributes use cryptographic algorithms, algorithm
negotiation SHOULD be supported. Specification of a mandatory-to-
implement algorithm is REQUIRED, and it is RECOMMENDED that the
mandatory-to-implement algorithm be certifiable under FIPS 140
[FIPS].
Where new RADIUS attributes encapsulate complex data types, or
transport opaque data, the security considerations discussed in
Section 5.1 SHOULD be addressed.
Message authentication in RADIUS is provided largely via the Message-
Authenticator attribute. See Section 3.2 of [RFC 3579] and also
Section 2.2.2 of [RFC 5080], which say that client implementations
SHOULD include a Message-Authenticator Attribute in every Access-
Request.
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 22
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
In general, the security of the RADIUS protocol is poor. Robust
deployments SHOULD support a secure communications protocol such as
IPsec. See Section 4 of [RFC 3579] and Section 5 of [RFC 3580] for a
more in-depth explanation of these issues.
Implementations not following the suggestions outlined in this
document may be subject to problems such as ambiguous protocol
decoding, packet loss leading to loss of billing information, and
denial-of-service attacks.
5.1. New Data Types and Complex Attributes
The introduction of complex data types brings the potential for the
introduction of new security vulnerabilities. Experience shows that
the common data types have few security vulnerabilities, or else that
all known issues have been found and fixed. New data types require
new code, which may introduce new bugs and therefore new attack
vectors.
Some systems permit complex attributes to be defined via a method
that is more capable than traditional RADIUS dictionaries. These
systems can reduce the security threat of new types significantly,
but they do not remove it entirely.
RADIUS servers are highly valued targets, as they control network
access and interact with databases that store usernames and
passwords. An extreme outcome of a vulnerability due to a new,
complex type would be that an attacker is capable of taking complete
control over the RADIUS server.
The use of attributes representing opaque data does not reduce this
threat. The threat merely moves from the RADIUS server to the system
that consumes that opaque data. The threat is particularly severe
when the opaque data originates from the user and is not validated by
the NAS. In those cases, the RADIUS server is potentially exposed to
attack by malware residing on an unauthenticated host.
Any system consuming opaque data that originates from a RADIUS system
SHOULD be properly isolated from that RADIUS system and SHOULD run
with minimal privileges. Any potential vulnerabilities in the non-
RADIUS system will then have minimal impact on the security of the
system as a whole.
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 23
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC 2865] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson,
"Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
RFC 2865, June 2000.
[RFC 3575] Aboba, B., "IANA Considerations for RADIUS (Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service)", RFC 3575, July
2003.
6.2. Informative References
[RFC 1155] Rose, M. and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and
identification of management information for TCP/IP-
based internets", STD 16, RFC 1155, May 1990.
[RFC 1157] Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M., and J. Davin,
"Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 1157,
May 1990.
[RFC 1321] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC
1321, April 1992.
[RFC 2548] Zorn, G., "Microsoft Vendor-specific RADIUS
Attributes", RFC 2548, March 1999.
[RFC 2607] Aboba, B. and J. Vollbrecht, "Proxy Chaining and Policy
Implementation in Roaming", RFC 2607, June 1999.
[RFC 2866] Rigney, C., "RADIUS Accounting", RFC 2866, June 2000.
[RFC 2868] Zorn, G., Leifer, D., Rubens, A., Shriver, J.,
Holdrege, M., and I. Goyret, "RADIUS Attributes for
Tunnel Protocol Support", RFC 2868, June 2000.
[RFC 2869] Rigney, C., Willats, W., and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS
Extensions", RFC 2869, June 2000.
[RFC 2882] Mitton, D., "Network Access Servers Requirements:
Extended RADIUS Practices", RFC 2882, July 2000.
[RFC 3162] Aboba, B., Zorn, G., and D. Mitton, "RADIUS and IPv6",
RFC 3162, August 2001.
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 24
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
[RFC 3579] Aboba, B. and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS (Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service) Support For
Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC 3579,
September 2003.
[RFC 3580] Congdon, P., Aboba, B., Smith, A., Zorn, G., and J.
Roese, "IEEE 802.1X Remote Authentication Dial In User
Service (RADIUS) Usage Guidelines", RFC 3580, September
2003.
[RFC 3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
[RFC 4181] Heard, C., Ed., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers
of MIB Documents", BCP 111, RFC 4181, September 2005.
[RFC 4663] Harrington, D., "Transferring MIB Work from IETF Bridge
MIB WG to IEEE 802.1 WG", RFC 4663, September 2006.
[RFC 4675] Congdon, P., Sanchez, M., and B. Aboba, "RADIUS
Attributes for Virtual LAN and Priority Support", RFC
4675, September 2006.
[RFC 4679] Mammoliti, V., Zorn, G., Arberg, P., and R. Rennison,
"DSL Forum Vendor-Specific RADIUS Attributes", RFC
4679, September 2006.
[RFC 4818] Salowey, J. and R. Droms, "RADIUS Delegated-IPv6-Prefix
Attribute", RFC 4818, April 2007.
[RFC 4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path
MTU Discovery", RFC 4821, March 2007.
[RFC 4849] Congdon, P., Sanchez, M., and B. Aboba, "RADIUS Filter
Rule Attribute", RFC 4849, April 2007.
[RFC 5080] Nelson, D. and A. DeKok, "Common Remote Authentication
Dial In User Service (RADIUS) Implementation Issues and
Suggested Fixes", RFC 5080, December 2007.
[RFC 5090] Sterman, B., Sadolevsky, D., Schwartz, D., Williams,
D., and W. Beck, "RADIUS Extension for Digest
Authentication", RFC 5090, February 2008.
[RFC 5176] Chiba, M., Dommety, G., Eklund, M., Mitton, D., and B.
Aboba, "Dynamic Authorization Extensions to Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC
5176, January 2008.
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 25
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
[DOCTORS] AAA Doctors Mailing List, www.ietf.org/mail-
archive/web/aaa-doctors.
[FIPS] FIPS 140-3 (DRAFT), "Security Requirements for
Cryptographic Modules",
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsFIPS.html.
[IEEE-802.1Q] IEEE Standards for Local and Metropolitan Area
Networks: Draft Standard for Virtual Bridged Local Area
Networks, P802.1Q-2003, January 2003.
[RFC 5580] Tschofenig, H., Ed., Adrangi, F., Jones, M., Lior, A.,
and B. Aboba, "Carrying Location Objects in RADIUS and
Diameter", RFC 5580, August 2009.
[AAA-SIP] Sterman, B., Sadolevsky, D., Schwartz, D., Williams,
D., and W. Beck, "RADIUS Extension for Digest
Authentication", Work in Progress, November 2004.
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 26
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
Appendix A. Design Guidelines Checklist
The following text provides guidelines for the design of attributes
used by the RADIUS protocol. Specifications that follow these
guidelines are expected to achieve maximum interoperability with
minimal changes to existing systems.
A.1. Types Matching the RADIUS Data Model
A.1.1. Transport of Basic Data Types
Does the data fit within the basic data types described in Section
2.1? If so, it SHOULD be encapsulated in a [RFC 2865] format RADIUS
attribute or in a [RFC 2865] format RADIUS VSA that uses one of the
existing RADIUS data types.
A.1.2. Transport of Authentication and Security Data
Does the data provide authentication and/or security capabilities for
the RADIUS protocol as outlined below? If so, use of a complex data
type is acceptable under the following circumstances:
* Complex data types that carry authentication methods that RADIUS
servers are expected to parse and verify as part of an
authentication process.
* Complex data types that carry security information intended to
increase the security of the RADIUS protocol itself.
Any data type carrying authentication and/or security data that is
not meant to be parsed by a RADIUS server is an "opaque data type",
as defined in Section A.1.3.
A.1.3. Opaque Data Types
Does the attribute encapsulate an existing data structure defined
outside of the RADIUS specifications? Can the attribute be treated
as opaque data by RADIUS servers (including proxies)? If both
questions can be answered affirmatively, a complex structure MAY be
used in a RADIUS specification.
The specification of the attribute SHOULD define the encapsulating
attribute to be of type String. The specification SHOULD refer to an
external document defining the structure. The specification SHOULD
NOT define or describe the structure, for reasons discussed in
Section 3.2.3.
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 27
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
A.1.4. Pre-Existing Data Types
There is a trade-off in design between reusing existing formats for
historical compatibility or choosing new formats for a "better"
design. This trade-off does not always require the "better" design
to be used. As a result, pre-existing complex data types described
in Appendix B MAY be used.
A.2. Improper Data Types
This section suggests alternatives to data types that do not fall
within the "basic data type" definition. Section A.2.1 describes
simple data types, which should be replaced by basic data types.
Section A.2.2 describes more complex data types, which should be
replaced by multiple attributes using the basic data types.
A.2.1. Simple Data Types
Does the attribute use any of the following data types? If so, the
data type SHOULD be replaced with the suggested alternatives, or it
SHOULD NOT be used at all.
* Signed integers of any size.
SHOULD NOT be used. SHOULD be replaced with one or more
unsigned integer attributes. The definition of the attribute
can contain information that would otherwise go into the sign
value of the integer.
* 8-bit unsigned integers.
SHOULD be replaced with 32-bit unsigned integer. There is
insufficient justification to save three bytes.
* 16-bit unsigned integers.
SHOULD be replaced with 32-bit unsigned integer. There is
insufficient justification to save two bytes.
* Unsigned integers of size other than 32 bits.
SHOULD be replaced by an unsigned integer of 32 bits. There is
insufficient justification to define a new size of integer.
* Integers of any size in non-network byte order.
SHOULD be replaced by unsigned integer of 32 bits in network.
There is no reason to transport integers in any format other
than network byte order.
* Multi-field text strings.
Each field SHOULD be encapsulated in a separate attribute.
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 28
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
* Polymorphic attributes.
Multiple attributes, each with a static data type, SHOULD be
defined instead.
* Nested attribute-value pairs (AVPs).
Attributes should be defined in a flat typespace.
A.2.2. More Complex Data Types
Does the attribute:
* define a complex data type not described in Appendix B?
* that a RADIUS server and/or client is expected to parse,
validate, or create the contents of via a dynamic computation
(i.e., a type that cannot be treated as opaque data (Section
A.1.3))?
* involve functionality that could be implemented without code
changes on both the client and server (i.e., a type that doesn't
require dynamic computation and verification, such as those
performed for authentication or security attributes)?
If so, this data type SHOULD be replaced with simpler types, as
discussed in Appendix A.2.1. See also Section 2.1 for a discussion
of why complex types are problematic.
A.3. Vendor-Specific Formats
Does the specification contain Vendor-Specific Attributes that match
any of the following criteria? If so, the VSA encoding should be
replaced with the [RFC 2865], Section 5.26 encoding or should not be
used at all.
* Vendor types of more than 8 bits.
SHOULD NOT be used. Vendor types of 8 bits SHOULD be used
instead.
* Vendor lengths of less than 8 bits (i.e., zero bits).
SHOULD NOT be used. Vendor lengths of 8 bits SHOULD be used
instead.
* Vendor lengths of more than 8 bits.
SHOULD NOT be used. Vendor lengths of 8 bits SHOULD be used
instead.
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 29
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
* Vendor-specific contents that are not in Type-Length-Value
format.
SHOULD NOT be used. Vendor-Specific Attributes SHOULD be in
Type-Length-Value format.
In general, Vendor-Specific Attributes SHOULD follow the encoding
suggested in Section 5.26 of [RFC 2865]. Vendor extensions to non-
standard encodings are NOT RECOMMENDED as they can negatively affect
interoperability.
A.4. Changes to the RADIUS Operational Model
Does the specification change the RADIUS operation model as outlined
in the list below? If so, then another method of achieving the
design objectives SHOULD be used. Potential problem areas include
the following:
* Defining new commands in RADIUS using attributes.
The addition of new commands to RADIUS MUST be handled via
allocation of a new Code and not by the use of an attribute.
This restriction includes new commands created by overloading
the Service-Type Attribute to define new values that modify the
functionality of Access-Request packets.
* Using RADIUS as a transport protocol for data unrelated to
authentication, authorization, or accounting.
Using RADIUS to transport authentication methods such as EAP is
explicitly permitted, even if those methods require the
transport of relatively large amounts of data. Transport of
opaque data relating to AAA is also permitted, as discussed in
Section 3.2.3. However, if the specification does not relate to
AAA, then RADIUS SHOULD NOT be used.
* Assuming support for packet lengths greater than 4096 octets.
Attribute designers cannot assume that RADIUS implementations
can successfully handle packets larger than 4096 octets. If a
specification could lead to a RADIUS packet larger than 4096
octets, then the alternatives described in Section 3.3 SHOULD be
considered.
* Stateless operation.
The RADIUS protocol is stateless, and documents that require
stateful protocol behavior without the use of the State
Attribute need to be redesigned.
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 30
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
* Provisioning of service in an Access-Reject.
Such provisioning is not permitted, and MUST NOT be used. If
limited access needs to be provided, then an Access-Accept with
appropriate authorizations can be used instead.
* Provisioning of service in a Disconnect-Request.
Such provisioning is not permitted and MUST NOT be used. If
limited access needs to be provided, then a CoA-Request
[RFC 5176] with appropriate authorizations can be used instead.
* Lack of user authentication or authorization restrictions.
In an authorization check, where there is no demonstration of a
live user, confidential data cannot be returned. Where there is
a link to a previous user authentication, the State Attribute
SHOULD be present.
* Lack of per-packet integrity and authentication.
It is expected that documents will support per-packet integrity
and authentication.
* Modification of RADIUS packet sequences.
In RADIUS, each request is encapsulated in its own packet and
elicits a single response that is sent to the requester. Since
changes to this paradigm are likely to require major
modifications to RADIUS client and server implementations, they
SHOULD be avoided if possible.
For further details, see Section 3.1.
A.5. Allocation of Attributes
Does the attribute have a limited scope of applicability as outlined
below? If so, then the attributes SHOULD be allocated from the
vendor space rather than requesting allocation from the standard
space.
* attributes intended for a vendor to support their own systems
and not suitable for general usage
* attributes relying on data types not defined within RADIUS
* attributes intended primarily for use within an SDO
* attributes intended primarily for use within a group of SDOs
Note that the points listed above do not relax the recommendations
discussed in this document. Instead, they recognize that the RADIUS
data model has limitations. In certain situations where
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 31
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
interoperability can be strongly constrained by the SDO or vendor, an
expanded data model MAY be used. It is RECOMMENDED, however, that
the RADIUS data model be used, even when it is marginally less
efficient than alternatives.
When attributes are used primarily within a group of SDOs, and are
not applicable to the wider Internet community, we expect that one
SDO will be responsible for allocation from their own private vendor
space.
Appendix B. Complex Attributes
This appendix summarizes RADIUS attributes with complex data types
that are defined in existing RFCs.
This appendix is published for informational purposes only and
reflects the usage of attributes with complex data types at the time
of the publication of this document.
B.1. CHAP-Password
[RFC 2865], Section 5.3 defines the CHAP-Password Attribute, which is
sent from the RADIUS client to the RADIUS server in an Access-
Request. The data type of the CHAP Identifier is not given, only the
one-octet length:
0 1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
| Type | Length | CHAP Ident | String ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Since this is an authentication attribute, code changes are required
on the RADIUS client and server to support it, regardless of the
attribute format. Therefore, this complex data type is acceptable in
this situation.
B.2. CHAP-Challenge
[RFC 2865], Section 5.40 defines the CHAP-Challenge Attribute, which
is sent from the RADIUS client to the RADIUS server in an Access-
Request. While the data type of the CHAP Identifier is given, the
text also says:
If the CHAP challenge value is 16 octets long it MAY be placed in
the Request Authenticator field instead of using this attribute.
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 32
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
Defining attributes to contain values taken from the RADIUS packet
header is NOT RECOMMENDED. Attributes should have values that are
packed into a RADIUS AVP.
B.3. Tunnel-Password
[RFC 2868], Section 3.5 defines the Tunnel-Password Attribute, which
is sent from the RADIUS server to the client in an Access-Accept.
This attribute includes Tag and Salt fields, as well as a String
field that consists of three logical sub-fields: the Data-Length
(required and one octet), Password sub-fields (required), and the
optional Padding sub-field. The attribute appears as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Tag | Salt
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Salt (cont) | String ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Since this is a security attribute, code changes are required on the
RADIUS client and server to support it, regardless of the attribute
format. However, while use of a complex data type is acceptable in
this situation, the design of the Tunnel-Password Attribute is
problematic from a security perspective since it uses MD5 as a cipher
and provides a password to a NAS, potentially without proper
authorization.
B.4. ARAP-Password
[RFC 2869], Section 5.4 defines the ARAP-Password Attribute, which is
sent from the RADIUS client to the server in an Access-Request. It
contains four 4-octet values instead of having a single Value field:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Value1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value2
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value4
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 33
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
As with the CHAP-Password Attribute, this is an authentication
attribute that would have required code changes on the RADIUS client
and server, regardless of format.
B.5. ARAP-Features
[RFC 2869], Section 5.5 defines the ARAP-Features Attribute, which is
sent from the RADIUS server to the client in an Access-Accept or
Access-Challenge. It contains a compound string of two single octet
values, plus three 4-octet values, which the RADIUS client
encapsulates in a feature flags packet in the Apple Remote Access
Protocol (ARAP):
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Value1 | Value2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value3 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value5 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Unlike the previous attributes, this attribute contains no encrypted
component, nor is it directly involved in authentication. The
individual sub-fields therefore could have been encapsulated in
separate attributes.
While the contents of this attribute are intended to be placed in an
ARAP packet, the fields need to be set by the RADIUS server. Using
standard RADIUS data types would have simplified RADIUS server
implementations and subsequent management. The current form of the
attribute requires either the RADIUS server implementation or the
RADIUS server administrator to understand the internals of the ARAP
protocol.
B.6. Connect-Info
[RFC 2869], Section 5.11 defines the Connect-Info Attribute, which is
used to indicate the nature of the connection.
0 1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Text...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 34
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
Even though the type is Text, the rest of the description indicates
that it is a complex attribute:
The Text field consists of UTF-8 encoded 10646 [8] characters.
The connection speed SHOULD be included at the beginning of the
first Connect-Info attribute in the packet. If the transmit and
receive connection speeds differ, they may both be included in the
first attribute with the transmit speed first (the speed the NAS
modem transmits at), a slash (/), the receive speed, then
optionally other information.
For example, "28800 V42BIS/LAPM" or "52000/31200 V90"
More than one Connect-Info attribute may be present in an
Accounting-Request packet to accommodate expected efforts by ITU
to have modems report more connection information in a standard
format that might exceed 252 octets.
This attribute contains no encrypted component and is not directly
involved in authentication. The individual sub-fields could
therefore have been encapsulated in separate attributes.
However, since the definition refers to potential standardization
activity within ITU, the Connect-Info Attribute can also be thought
of as opaque data whose definition is provided elsewhere. The
Connect-Info Attribute could therefore qualify for an exception as
described in Section 3.2.4.
B.7. Framed-IPv6-Prefix
Section 2.3 of [RFC 3162] defines the Framed-IPv6-Prefix Attribute,
and Section 3 of [RFC 4818] reuses this format for the Delegated-
IPv6-Prefix Attribute; these attributes are sent from the RADIUS
server to the client in an Access-Accept.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Reserved | Prefix-Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Prefix
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Prefix
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Prefix
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Prefix |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 35
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
The sub-fields encoded in these attributes are strongly related, and
there was no previous definition of this data structure that could be
referenced. Support for this attribute requires code changes on both
the client and server, due to a new data type being defined. In this
case, it appears to be acceptable to encode them in one attribute.
B.8. Egress-VLANID
[RFC 4675], Section 2.1 defines the Egress-VLANID Attribute, which can
be sent by a RADIUS client or server.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Value
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Value (cont) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
While it appears superficially to be of type Integer, the Value field
is actually a packed structure, as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag Indic. | Pad | VLANID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The length of the VLANID field is defined by the [IEEE-802.1Q]
specification. The Tag Indicator field is either 0x31 or 0x32, for
compatibility with the Egress-VLAN-Name, as discussed below. The
complex structure of Egress-VLANID overlaps with that of the base
Integer data type, meaning that no code changes are required for a
RADIUS server to support this attribute. Code changes are required
on the NAS, if only to implement the VLAN ID enforcement.
Given the IEEE VLAN requirements and the limited data model of
RADIUS, the chosen method is likely the best of the possible
alternatives.
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 36
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
B.9. Egress-VLAN-Name
[RFC 4675], Section 2.3 defines the Egress-VLAN-Name Attribute, which
can be sent by a RADIUS client or server.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Tag Indic. | String...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Tag Indicator is either the character '1' or '2', which in ASCII
map to the identical values for Tag Indicator in Egress-VLANID above.
The complex structure of this attribute is acceptable for reasons
identical to those given for Egress-VLANID.
B.10. Digest-*
[RFC 5090] attempts to standardize the functionality provided by an
expired Internet-Draft [AAA-SIP], which improperly uses two
attributes from the standard space without having been assigned them
by IANA. This self-allocation is forbidden, as described in Section
2. In addition, the document uses nested attributes, which are
discouraged in Section 2.1. The updated document uses basic data
types and allocates nearly 20 attributes in the process.
However, the document has seen wide-spread implementation, but
[RFC 5090] has not. One explanation may be that implementors
disagreed with the trade-offs made in the updated specification. It
may have been better to simply document the existing format and
request IANA allocation of two attributes. The resulting design
would have used nested attributes but may have gained more wide-
spread implementation.
Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge David Nelson, Bernard Aboba, Emile van
Bergen, Barney Wolff, Glen Zorn, Avi Lior, and Hannes Tschofenig for
contributions to this document.
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 37
RFC 6158 RADIUS Design Guidelines March 2011
Authors' Addresses
Alan DeKok (editor)
The FreeRADIUS Server Project
http://freeradius.org/
EMail: aland@freeradius.org
Greg Weber
Knoxville, TN 37932
USA
EMail: gdweber@gmail.com
DeKok & Weber Best Current Practice PAGE 38
RADIUS Design Guidelines
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 89319 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Saturday, March 12th, 2011
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
