Movatterモバイル変換

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                          A. DeKokRequest for Comments: 6613                                    FreeRADIUSCategory: Experimental                                          May 2012ISSN: 2070-1721RADIUS over TCPAbstract   The Remote Authentication Dial-In User Server (RADIUS) protocol has,   until now, required the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) as the   underlying transport layer.  This document defines RADIUS over the   Transmission Control Protocol (RADIUS/TCP), in order to address   handling issues related to RADIUS over Transport Layer Security   (RADIUS/TLS).  It permits TCP to be used as a transport protocol for   RADIUS only when a transport layer such as TLS or IPsec provides   confidentiality and security.Status of This Memo   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is   published for examination, experimental implementation, and   evaluation.   This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet   community.  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).  Not   all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of   Internet Standard; seeSection 2 of RFC 5741.   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained athttp://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6613.DeKok                         Experimental                      [Page 1]

RFC 6613                     RADIUS over TCP                    May 2012Copyright Notice   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the   document authors.  All rights reserved.   This document is subject toBCP 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.Table of Contents1. Introduction ....................................................31.1. Applicability of Reliable Transport ........................41.2. Terminology ................................................61.3. Requirements Language ......................................62. Changes to RADIUS ...............................................62.1. Packet Format ..............................................72.2. Assigned Ports for RADIUS/TCP ..............................72.3. Management Information Base (MIB) ..........................82.4. Detecting Live Servers .....................................82.5. Congestion Control Issues ..................................92.6. TCP Specific Issues ........................................92.6.1. Duplicates and Retransmissions .....................102.6.2. Head of Line Blocking ..............................112.6.3. Shared Secrets .....................................112.6.4. Malformed Packets and Unknown Clients ..............122.6.5. Limitations of the ID Field ........................132.6.6. EAP Sessions .......................................132.6.7. TCP Applications Are Not UDP Applications ..........143. Diameter Considerations ........................................144. Security Considerations ........................................145. References .....................................................155.1. Normative References ......................................155.2. Informative References ....................................15DeKok                         Experimental                      [Page 2]

RFC 6613                     RADIUS over TCP                    May 20121.  Introduction   The RADIUS protocol is defined in [RFC2865] as using the User   Datagram Protocol (UDP) for the underlying transport layer.  While   there are a number of benefits to using UDP as outlined in[RFC2865],   Section 2.4, there are also some limitations:      *  Unreliable transport.  As a result, systems using RADIUS have         to implement application-layer timers and retransmissions, as         described in[RFC5080], Section 2.2.1.      *  Packet fragmentation.[RFC2865], Section 3, permits RADIUS         packets up to 4096 octets in length.  These packets are larger         than the common Internet MTU (576), resulting in fragmentation         of the packets at the IP layer when they are proxied over the         Internet.  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.      *  Connectionless transport.  Neither clients nor servers receive         positive statements that a "connection" is down.  This         information has to be deduced instead from the absence of a         reply to a request.      *  Lack of congestion control.  Clients can send arbitrary amounts         of traffic with little or no feedback.  This lack of feedback         can result in congestive collapse of the network.   RADIUS has been widely deployed for well over a decade and continues   to be widely deployed.  Experience shows that these issues have been   minor in some use cases and problematic in others.  For use cases   such as inter-server proxying, an alternative transport and security   model -- RADIUS/TLS, is defined in [RFC6614].  That document   describes the transport implications of running RADIUS/TLS.   The choice of TCP as a transport protocol is largely driven by the   desire to improve the security of RADIUS by using RADIUS/TLS.  For   practical reasons, the transport protocol (TCP) is defined separately   from the security mechanism (TLS).   Since "bare" TCP does not provide for confidentiality or enable   negotiation of credible ciphersuites, its use is not appropriate for   inter-server communications where strong security is required.  As a   result, "bare" TCP transport MUST NOT be used without TLS, IPsec, or   another secure upper layer.DeKok                         Experimental                      [Page 3]

RFC 6613                     RADIUS over TCP                    May 2012   However, "bare" TCP transport MAY be used when another method such as   IPsec [RFC4301] is used to provide additional confidentiality and   security.  Should experience show that such deployments are useful,   this specification could be moved to the Standards Track.1.1.  Applicability of Reliable Transport   The intent of this document is to address transport issues related to   RADIUS/TLS [RFC6614] in inter-server communications scenarios, such   as inter-domain communication between proxies.  These situations   benefit from the confidentiality and ciphersuite negotiation that can   be provided by TLS.  Since TLS is already widely available within the   operating systems used by proxies, implementation barriers are low.   In scenarios where RADIUS proxies exchange a large volume of packets,   it is likely that there will be sufficient traffic to enable the   congestion window to be widened beyond the minimum value on a long-   term basis, enabling ACK piggybacking.  Through use of an   application-layer watchdog as described in [RFC3539], it is possible   to address the objections to reliable transport described in[RFC2865], Section 2.4, without substantial watchdog traffic, since   regular traffic is expected in both directions.   In addition, use of RADIUS/TLS has been found to improve operational   performance when used with multi-round-trip authentication mechanisms   such as the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) over RADIUS   [RFC3579].  In such exchanges, it is typical for EAP fragmentation to   increase the number of round trips required.  For example, where EAP-   TLS authentication [RFC5216] is attempted and both the EAP peer and   server utilize certificate chains of 8 KB, as many as 15 round trips   can be required if RADIUS packets are restricted to the common   Ethernet MTU (1500 octets) for EAP over LAN (EAPoL) use cases.   Fragmentation of RADIUS/UDP packets is generally inadvisable due to   lack of fragmentation support within intermediate devices such as   filtering routers, firewalls, and NATs.  However, since RADIUS/UDP   implementations typically do not support MTU discovery, fragmentation   can occur even when the maximum RADIUS/UDP packet size is restricted   to 1500 octets.   These problems disappear if a 4096-octet application-layer payload   can be used alongside RADIUS/TLS.  Since most TCP implementations   support MTU discovery, the TCP Maximum Segment Size (MSS) is   automatically adjusted to account for the MTU, and the larger   congestion window supported by TCP may allow multiple TCP segments to   be sent within a single window.  Even those few TCP stacks that do   not perform Path MTU discovery can already support arbitrary   payloads.DeKok                         Experimental                      [Page 4]

RFC 6613                     RADIUS over TCP                    May 2012   Where the MTU for EAP packets is large, RADIUS/EAP traffic required   for an EAP-TLS authentication with 8-KB certificate chains may be   reduced to 7 round trips or less, resulting in substantially reduced   authentication times.   In addition, experience indicates that EAP sessions transported over   RADIUS/TLS are less likely to abort unsuccessfully.  Historically,   RADIUS-over-UDP (seeSection 1.2) implementations have exhibited poor   retransmission behavior.  Some implementations retransmit packets,   others do not, and others send new packets rather than performing   retransmission.  Some implementations are incapable of detecting EAP   retransmissions, and will instead treat the retransmitted packet as   an error.  As a result, within RADIUS/UDP implementations,   retransmissions have a high likelihood of causing an EAP   authentication session to fail.  For a system with a million logins a   day running EAP-TLS mutual authentication with 15 round trips, and   having a packet loss probability of P=0.01%, we expect that 0.3% of   connections will experience at least one lost packet.  That is, 3,000   user sessions each day will experience authentication failure.  This   is an unacceptable failure rate for a mass-market network service.   Using a reliable transport method such as TCP means that RADIUS   implementations can remove all application-layer retransmissions, and   instead rely on the Operating System (OS) kernel's well-tested TCP   transport to ensure Path MTU discovery and reliable delivery.  Modern   TCP implementations also implement anti-spoofing provisions, which is   more difficult to do in a UDP application.   In contrast, use of TCP as a transport between a Network Access   Server (NAS) and a RADIUS server is usually a poor fit.  As noted in[RFC3539], Section 2.1, for systems originating low numbers of RADIUS   request packets, inter-packet spacing is often larger than the packet   Round-Trip Time (RTT), meaning that, the congestion window will   typically stay below the minimum value on a long-term basis.  The   result is an increase in packets due to ACKs as compared to UDP,   without a corresponding set of benefits.  In addition, the lack of   substantial traffic implies the need for additional watchdog traffic   to confirm reachability.   As a result, the objections to reliable transport indicated in[RFC2865], Section 2.4, continue to apply to NAS-RADIUS server   communications, and UDP SHOULD continue to be used as the transport   protocol in this scenario.  In addition, it is recommended that   implementations of RADIUS Dynamic Authorization Extensions [RFC5176]   SHOULD continue to utilize UDP transport, since the volume of dynamic   authorization traffic is usually expected to be small.DeKok                         Experimental                      [Page 5]

RFC 6613                     RADIUS over TCP                    May 20121.2.  Terminology   This document uses the following terms:   RADIUS client      A device that provides an access service for a user to a network.      Also referred to as a Network Access Server, or NAS.   RADIUS server      A device that provides one or more of authentication,      authorization, and/or accounting (AAA) services to a NAS.   RADIUS proxy      A RADIUS proxy acts as a RADIUS server to the NAS, and a RADIUS      client to the RADIUS server.   RADIUS request packet      A packet originated by a RADIUS client to a RADIUS server.  For      example, Access-Request, Accounting-Request, CoA-Request, or      Disconnect-Request.   RADIUS response packet      A packet sent by a RADIUS server to a RADIUS client, in response      to a RADIUS request packet.  For example, Access-Accept, Access-      Reject, Access-Challenge, Accounting-Response, or CoA-ACK.   RADIUS/UDP      RADIUS over UDP, as defined in [RFC2865].   RADIUS/TCP      RADIUS over TCP, as defined in this document.   RADIUS/TLS      RADIUS over TLS, as defined in [RFC6614].1.3.  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 [RFC2119].2.  Changes to RADIUS   RADIUS/TCP involves sending RADIUS application messages over a TCP   connection.  In the sections that follow, we discuss the implications   for the RADIUS packet format (Section 2.1), port usage (Section 2.2),   RADIUS MIBs (Section 2.3), and RADIUS proxies (Section 2.5).  TCP-   specific issues are discussed inSection 2.6.DeKok                         Experimental                      [Page 6]

RFC 6613                     RADIUS over TCP                    May 20122.1.  Packet Format   The RADIUS packet format is unchanged from [RFC2865], [RFC2866], and   [RFC5176].  Specifically, all of the following portions of RADIUS   MUST be unchanged when using RADIUS/TCP:      *  Packet format      *  Permitted codes      *  Request Authenticator calculation      *  Response Authenticator calculation      *  Minimum packet length      *  Maximum packet length      *  Attribute format      *  Vendor-Specific Attribute (VSA) format      *  Permitted data types      *  Calculations of dynamic attributes such as CHAP-Challenge, or         Message-Authenticator.      *  Calculation of "encrypted" attributes such as Tunnel-Password.   The use of TLS transport does not change the calculation of security-   related fields (such as the Response-Authenticator) in RADIUS   [RFC2865] or RADIUS Dynamic Authorization [RFC5176].  Calculation of   attributes such as User-Password [RFC2865] or Message-Authenticator   [RFC3579] also does not change.   Clients and servers MUST be able to store and manage shared secrets   based on the key described inSection 2.6, of (IP address, port,   transport protocol).   The changes to RADIUS implementations required to implement this   specification are largely limited to the portions that send and   receive packets on the network.2.2.  Assigned Ports for RADIUS/TCP   IANA has already assigned TCP ports for RADIUS transport, as outlined   below:      * radius          1812/tcp      * radius-acct     1813/tcp      * radius-dynauth  3799/tcp   Since these ports are unused by existing RADIUS implementations, the   assigned values MUST be used as the default ports for RADIUS over   TCP.DeKok                         Experimental                      [Page 7]

RFC 6613                     RADIUS over TCP                    May 2012   The early deployment of RADIUS was done using UDP port number 1645,   which conflicts with the "datametrics" service.  Implementations   using RADIUS/TCP MUST NOT use TCP ports 1645 or 1646 as the default   ports for this specification.   The "radsec" port (2083/tcp) SHOULD be used as the default port for   RADIUS/TLS.  The "radius" port (1812/tcp) SHOULD NOT be used for   RADIUS/TLS.2.3.  Management Information Base (MIB)   The MIB Module definitions in [RFC4668], [RFC4669], [RFC4670],   [RFC4671], [RFC4672], and [RFC4673] are intended to be used for   RADIUS over UDP.  As such, they do not support RADIUS/TCP, and will   need to be updated in the future.  Implementations of RADIUS/TCP   SHOULD NOT reuse these MIB Modules to perform statistics counting for   RADIUS/TCP connections.2.4.  Detecting Live Servers   As RADIUS is a "hop-by-hop" protocol, a RADIUS proxy shields the   client from any information about downstream servers.  While the   client may be able to deduce the operational state of the local   server (i.e., proxy), it cannot make any determination about the   operational state of the downstream servers.   Within RADIUS, as defined in [RFC2865], proxies typically only   forward traffic between the NAS and RADIUS server, and they do not   generate their own responses.  As a result, when a NAS does not   receive a response to a request, this could be the result of packet   loss between the NAS and proxy, a problem on the proxy, loss between   the RADIUS proxy and server, or a problem with the server.   When UDP is used as a transport protocol, the absence of a reply can   cause a client to deduce (incorrectly) that the proxy is unavailable.   The client could then fail over to another server or conclude that no   "live" servers are available (OKAY state in[RFC3539], Appendix A).   This situation is made even worse when requests are sent through a   proxy to multiple destinations.  Failures in one destination may   result in service outages for other destinations, if the client   erroneously believes that the proxy is unresponsive.   For RADIUS/TLS, it is RECOMMENDED that implementations utilize the   existence of a TCP connection along with the application-layer   watchdog defined in[RFC3539], Section 3.4, to determine that the   server is "live".DeKok                         Experimental                      [Page 8]

RFC 6613                     RADIUS over TCP                    May 2012   RADIUS clients using RADIUS/TCP MUST mark a connection DOWN if the   network stack indicates that the connection is no longer active.  If   the network stack indicates that the connection is still active,   clients MUST NOT decide that it is down until the application-layer   watchdog algorithm has marked it DOWN ([RFC3539], Appendix A).   RADIUS clients using RADIUS/TCP MUST NOT decide that a RADIUS server   is unresponsive until all TCP connections to it have been marked   DOWN.   The above requirements do not forbid the practice of a client   proactively closing connections or marking a server as DOWN due to an   administrative decision.2.5.  Congestion Control Issues   Additional issues with RADIUS proxies involve transport protocol   changes where the proxy receives packets on one transport protocol   and forwards them on a different transport protocol.  There are   several situations in which the law of "conservation of packets"   could be violated on an end-to-end basis (e.g., where more packets   could enter the system than could leave it on a short-term basis):      *  Where TCP is used between proxies, it is possible that the         bandwidth consumed by incoming UDP packets destined to a given         upstream server could exceed the sending rate of a single TCP         connection to that server, based on the window size/RTT         estimate.      *  It is possible for the incoming rate of TCP packets destined to         a given realm to exceed the UDP throughput achievable using the         transport guidelines established in [RFC5080].  This could         happen, for example, where the TCP window between proxies has         opened, but packet loss is being experienced on the UDP leg, so         that the effective congestion window on the UDP side is 1.   Intrinsically, proxy systems operate with multiple control loops   instead of one end-to-end loop, and so they are less stable.  This is   true even for TCP-TCP proxies.  As discussed in [RFC3539], the only   way to achieve stability equivalent to a single TCP connection is to   mimic the end-to-end behavior of a single TCP connection.  This   typically is not achievable with an application-layer RADIUS   implementation, regardless of transport.2.6.  TCP Specific Issues   The guidelines defined in [RFC3539] for implementing a AAA protocol   over reliable transport are applicable to RADIUS/TLS.DeKok                         Experimental                      [Page 9]

RFC 6613                     RADIUS over TCP                    May 2012   The application-layer watchdog defined in[RFC3539], Section 3.4,   MUST be used.  The Status-Server packet [RFC5997] MUST be used as the   application-layer watchdog message.  Implementations MUST reserve one   RADIUS ID per connection for the application-layer watchdog message.   This restriction is described further inSection 2.6.4.   RADIUS/TLS implementations MUST support receiving RADIUS packets over   both UDP and TCP transports originating from the same endpoint.   RADIUS packets received over UDP MUST be replied to over UDP; RADIUS   packets received over TCP MUST be replied to over TCP.  That is,   RADIUS clients and servers MUST be treated as unique based on a key   of the three-tuple (IP address, port, transport protocol).   Implementations MUST permit different shared secrets to be used for   UDP and TCP connections to the same destination IP address and   numerical port.   This requirement does not forbid the traditional practice of using   primary and secondary servers in a failover relationship.  Instead,   it requires that two services sharing an IP address and numerical   port, but differing in transport protocol, MUST be treated as   independent services for the purpose of failover, load-balancing,   etc.   Whenever the underlying network stack permits the use of TCP   keepalive socket options, their use is RECOMMENDED.2.6.1.  Duplicates and Retransmissions   As TCP is a reliable transport, implementations MUST NOT retransmit   RADIUS request packets over a given TCP connection.  Similarly, if   there is no response to a RADIUS packet over one TCP connection,   implementations MUST NOT retransmit that packet over a different TCP   connection to the same destination IP address and port, while the   first connection is in the OKAY state ([RFC3539], Appendix A).   However, if the TCP connection is broken or closed, retransmissions   over new connections are permissible.  RADIUS request packets that   have not yet received a response MAY be transmitted by a RADIUS   client over a new TCP connection.  As this procedure involves using a   new source port, the ID of the packet MAY change.  If the ID changes,   any security attributes such as Message-Authenticator MUST be   recalculated.   If a TCP connection is broken or closed, any cached RADIUS response   packets ([RFC5080], Section 2.2.2) associated with that connection   MUST be discarded.  A RADIUS server SHOULD stop the processing of any   requests associated with that TCP connection.  No response to these   requests can be sent over the TCP connection, so any furtherDeKok                         Experimental                     [Page 10]

RFC 6613                     RADIUS over TCP                    May 2012   processing is pointless.  This requirement applies not only to RADIUS   servers, but also to proxies.  When a client's connection to a proxy   server is closed, there may be responses from a home server that were   supposed to be sent by the proxy back over that connection to the   client.  Since the client connection is closed, those responses from   the home server to the proxy server SHOULD be silently discarded by   the proxy.   Despite the above discussion, RADIUS servers SHOULD still perform   duplicate detection on received packets, as described in[RFC5080],   Section 2.2.2.  This detection can prevent duplicate processing of   packets from non-conformant clients.   RADIUS packets SHOULD NOT be retransmitted to the same destination IP   and numerical port, but over a different transport protocol.  There   is no guarantee in RADIUS that the two ports are in any way related.   This requirement does not, however, forbid the practice of putting   multiple servers into a failover or load-balancing pool.  In that   situation, RADIUS request MAY be retransmitted to another server that   is known to be part of the same pool.2.6.2.  Head of Line Blocking   When using UDP as a transport for RADIUS, there is no ordering of   packets.  If a packet sent by a client is lost, that loss has no   effect on subsequent packets sent by that client.   Unlike UDP, TCP is subject to issues related to Head of Line (HoL)   blocking.  This occurs when a TCP segment is lost and a subsequent   TCP segment arrives out of order.  While the RADIUS server can   process RADIUS packets out of order, the semantics of TCP makes this   impossible.  This limitation can lower the maximum packet processing   rate of RADIUS/TCP.2.6.3.  Shared Secrets   The use of TLS transport does not change the calculation of security-   related fields (such as the Response-Authenticator) in RADIUS   [RFC2865] or RADIUS Dynamic Authorization [RFC5176].  Calculation of   attributes such as User-Password [RFC2865] or Message-Authenticator   [RFC3579] also does not change.   Clients and servers MUST be able to store and manage shared secrets   based on the key described above, at the start of this section (i.e.,   IP address, port, transport protocol).DeKok                         Experimental                     [Page 11]

RFC 6613                     RADIUS over TCP                    May 20122.6.4.  Malformed Packets and Unknown Clients   The RADIUS specifications ([RFC2865], and many others) say that an   implementation should "silently discard" a packet in a number of   circumstances.  This action has no further consequences for UDP   transport, as the "next" packet is completely independent of the   previous one.   When TCP is used as a transport, decoding the "next" packet on a   connection depends on the proper decoding of the previous packet.  As   a result, the behavior with respect to discarded packets has to   change.   Implementations of this specification SHOULD treat the "silently   discard" texts referenced above as "silently discard and close the   connection".  That is, the TCP connection MUST be closed if any of   the following circumstances are seen:      *  Connection from an unknown client      *  Packet where the RADIUS "Length" field is less than the minimum         RADIUS packet length      *  Packet where the RADIUS "Length" field is more than the maximum         RADIUS packet length      *  Packet that has an Attribute "Length" field has value of zero         or one (0 or 1)      *  Packet where the attributes do not exactly fill the packet      *  Packet where the Request Authenticator fails validation (where         validation is required)      *  Packet where the Response Authenticator fails validation (where         validation is required)      *  Packet where the Message-Authenticator attribute fails         validation (when it occurs in a packet)   After applying the above rules, there are still two situations where   the previous specifications allow a packet to be "silently discarded"   upon receipt:      *  Packets with an invalid code field      *  Response packets that do not match any outstanding request   In these situations, the TCP connections MAY remain open, or they MAY   be closed, as an implementation choice.  However, the invalid packet   MUST be silently discarded.   These requirements reduce the possibility for a misbehaving client or   server to wreak havoc on the network.DeKok                         Experimental                     [Page 12]

RFC 6613                     RADIUS over TCP                    May 20122.6.5.  Limitations of the ID Field   The RADIUS ID field is one octet in size.  As a result, any one TCP   connection can have only 256 "in flight" RADIUS packets at a time.   If more than 256 simultaneous "in flight" packets are required,   additional TCP connections will need to be opened.  This limitation   is also noted in[RFC3539], Section 2.4.   An additional limit is the requirement to send a Status-Server packet   over the same TCP connection as is used for normal requests.  As   noted in [RFC5997], the response to a Status-Server packet is either   an Access-Accept or an Accounting-Response.  If all IDs were   allocated to normal requests, then there would be no free ID to use   for the Status-Server packet, and it could not be sent over the   connection.   Implementations SHOULD reserve ID zero (0) on each TCP connection for   Status-Server packets.  This value was picked arbitrarily, as there   is no reason to choose any one value over another for this use.   Implementors may be tempted to extend RADIUS to permit more than 256   outstanding packets on one connection.  However, doing so is a   violation of a fundamental part of the protocol and MUST NOT be done.   Making that extension here is outside of the scope of this   specification.2.6.6.  EAP Sessions   When RADIUS clients send EAP requests using RADIUS/TCP, they SHOULD   choose the same TCP connection for all packets related to one EAP   session.  This practice ensures that EAP packets are transmitted in   order, and that problems with any one TCP connection affect the   minimum number of EAP sessions.   A simple method that may work in many situations is to hash the   contents of the Calling-Station-Id attribute, which normally contains   the Media Access Control (MAC) address.  The output of that hash can   be used to select a particular TCP connection.   However, EAP packets for one EAP session can still be transported   from client to server over multiple paths.  Therefore, when a server   receives a RADIUS request containing an EAP request, it MUST be   processed without considering the transport protocol.  For TCP   transport, it MUST be processed without considering the source port.   The algorithm suggested in[RFC5080], Section 2.1.1 SHOULD be used to   track EAP sessions, as it is independent of the source port and   transport protocol.DeKok                         Experimental                     [Page 13]

RFC 6613                     RADIUS over TCP                    May 2012   The retransmission requirements ofSection 2.6.1, above, MUST be   applied to RADIUS-encapsulated EAP packets.  That is, EAP   retransmissions MUST NOT result in retransmissions of RADIUS packets   over a particular TCP connection.  EAP retransmissions MAY result in   retransmission of RADIUS packets over a different TCP connection, but   only when the previous TCP connection is marked DOWN.2.6.7.  TCP Applications Are Not UDP Applications   Implementors should be aware that programming a robust TCP   application can be very different from programming a robust UDP   application.  It is RECOMMENDED that implementors of this   specification familiarize themselves with TCP application programming   concepts.   Clients and servers SHOULD implement configurable connection limits.   Clients and servers SHOULD implement configurable limits on     connection lifetime and idle timeouts.  Clients and servers SHOULD   implement configurable rate limiting on new connections.  Allowing an   unbounded number or rate of TCP connections may result in resource   exhaustion.   Further discussion of implementation issues is outside of the scope   of this document.3.  Diameter Considerations   This document defines TCP as a transport layer for RADIUS.  It   defines no new RADIUS attributes or codes.  The only interaction with   Diameter is in a RADIUS-to-Diameter, or in a Diameter-to-RADIUS   gateway.  The RADIUS side of such a gateway MAY implement RADIUS/TCP,   but this change has no effect on Diameter.4.  Security Considerations   As the RADIUS packet format, signing, and client verification are   unchanged from prior specifications, all of the security issues   outlined in previous specifications for RADIUS/UDP are also   applicable here.   As noted above, clients and servers SHOULD support configurable   connection limits.  Allowing an unlimited number of connections may   result in resource exhaustion.   Implementors should consult [RFC6614] for issues related to the   security of RADIUS/TLS, and [RFC5246] for issues related to the   security of the TLS protocol.DeKok                         Experimental                     [Page 14]

RFC 6613                     RADIUS over TCP                    May 2012   Since "bare" TCP does not provide for confidentiality or enable   negotiation of credible ciphersuites, its use is not appropriate for   inter-server communications where strong security is required.  As a   result, "bare" TCP transport MUST NOT be used without TLS, IPsec, or   another secure upper layer.   There are no (at this time) other known security issues for RADIUS-   over-TCP transport.5.  References5.1.  Normative References   [RFC2119]    Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate                Requirement Levels",BCP 14,RFC 2119, March 1997.   [RFC2865]    Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson,                "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",RFC 2865, June 2000.   [RFC3539]    Aboba, B. and J. Wood, "Authentication, Authorization                and Accounting (AAA) Transport Profile",RFC 3539, June                2003.   [RFC5997]    DeKok, A., "Use of Status-Server Packets in the Remote                Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) Protocol",RFC 5997, August 2010.   [RFC6614]    Winter, S., McCauley, M., Venaas, S., and K. Wierenga,                "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Encryption for RADIUS",RFC 6614, May 2012.5.2.  Informative References   [RFC2866]    Rigney, C., "RADIUS Accounting",RFC 2866, June 2000.   [RFC3579]    Aboba, B. and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS (Remote Authentication                Dial In User Service) Support For Extensible                Authentication Protocol (EAP)",RFC 3579, September                2003.   [RFC4301]    Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the                Internet Protocol",RFC 4301, December 2005.   [RFC4668]    Nelson, D., "RADIUS Authentication Client MIB for IPv6",RFC 4668, August 2006.DeKok                         Experimental                     [Page 15]

RFC 6613                     RADIUS over TCP                    May 2012   [RFC4669]    Nelson, D., "RADIUS Authentication Server MIB for IPv6",RFC 4669, August 2006.   [RFC4670]    Nelson, D., "RADIUS Accounting Client MIB for IPv6",RFC4670, August 2006.   [RFC4671]    Nelson, D., "RADIUS Accounting Server MIB for IPv6",RFC4671, August 2006.   [RFC4672]    De Cnodder, S., Jonnala, N., and M. Chiba, "RADIUS                Dynamic Authorization Client MIB",RFC 4672, September                2006.   [RFC4673]    De Cnodder, S., Jonnala, N., and M. Chiba, "RADIUS                Dynamic Authorization Server MIB",RFC 4673, September                2006.   [RFC5080]    Nelson, D. and A. DeKok, "Common Remote Authentication                Dial In User Service (RADIUS) Implementation Issues and                Suggested Fixes",RFC 5080, December 2007.   [RFC5176]    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.   [RFC5216]    Simon, D., Aboba, B., and R. Hurst, "The EAP-TLS                Authentication Protocol",RFC 5216, March 2008.   [RFC5246]    Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer                Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2",RFC 5246, August                2008.Author's Address   Alan DeKok   The FreeRADIUS Server Projecthttp://freeradius.org/   EMail: aland@freeradius.orgDeKok                         Experimental                     [Page 16]